Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

London, Midland, and Scottish Railway Bill [Lords].

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUMANIA (CREDIT).

Brigadier-General SPEARS: 5.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will consider discussing with the Rumanian financial delegation the taking by the Rumanian Government of such measures as would tend to reestablish the confidence of the British public in Rumanian securities?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ronald McNeill): The Rumanian Finance Minister has now left this country, but during his visit to London his attention was drawn to the importance of taking steps to improve Rumanian credit in the eyes of the British public.

Oral Answers to Questions — LIQUOR REGULATIONS (UNITED STATES).

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 6.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the fact that British vessels proceeding from Canada to Australia which have put in at Honolulu, in the Sandwich Islands, have been deprived of any spirituous liquor which they carried for the refreshment of their crew or passengers and have been obliged by the American authorities to continue their journey to Australia without liquor; and
what action is being taken by the British Government in the matter?

Mr. McNEILL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second part, therefore, does not arise.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that this matter has been referred to largely in the Canadian Press and that protests have been made, and how is it that our Foreign Office have not some information on the matter?

Mr. McNEILL: It may have been in the Press, but not officially reported.

Sir W. DAVISON: In a case like this, which is on all fours with the American practice, surely it is advisable for the Foreign Office to inquire into the matter, and assuming that the facts are correct, may I ask whether the American Government have had their attention called to their own despatch to the Spanish Government on this matter, in which they said that, while recognising the right of that Government—

HON. MEMBERS: Speech!

Mr. McNEILL: My hon. Friend is elaborating a hypothetical question, on the assumption that the facts are correct. I have told him that I have no information on that subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — PASSPORT (PROFESSOR PAVLOV).

Mr. RILEY: 7.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that the distinguished Russian scientist, Pavlov, invited to attend the Edinburgh congress on physiology, has been refused the visa to his passport by the British Consul in New York; and what is the reason or what are the reasons for such refusal?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the well-known physiologist, Professor Pavlov, has been refused a visa for England by His Britannic Majesty's Consul at New York; that the professor wished to come to this country to attend the congress of physiology at Edinburgh to which he has been invited; that he has
been granted a French visa without difficulty; and what is the reason for refusing a visa to this gentleman to visit this country?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson): I have been asked to answer these questions. My right hon. Friend has no information as to the refusal of a visa to Professor Pavlov in New York. I understand, however, that he has already sailed from America, and no obstacle will be placed in the way of his landing in this country to attend the congress on physiology at Edinburgh.

Mr. RILEY: Will the hon. Gentleman inquire what were the reasons for which the visa was refused by our Consul?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: We have no information that it was refused.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is there any general instruction to refuse visas to people who have passports issued by the present Russian Government?

Captain Viscount CURZON: Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that no interference will be exercised by his Department in the discretionary power of our officer in New York?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Each case is considered on its own merits.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In view of the extraordinary case outlined in this question, of this distinguished scientist being forbidden to enter this country, will the hon. Gentleman see his way to inform the ship in which this gentleman is leaving for France, so that he can come here and attend this conference?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that no difficulties whatever will be placed in the way of this gentleman landing.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Can the hon. Gentleman say who instructed the agent in New York not to give a visa to this gentleman?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have already stated that I have no information that a visa was refused.

Mr. RILEY: Will the hon. Gentleman do as requested by the hon. and gallant
Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), namely, take steps to have it conveyed to Professor Pavlov that he will be admitted to this country? It is important, because the Press state that he will not come here unless he receives such an intimation.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Would that not be a most unusual thing for the Government to do?

Oral Answers to Questions — GEORGIA (SOVIET OUTRAGES).

Mr. SNOWDEN: 8.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware of the executions and persecutions of the Georgian people which are being carried out by the Bolshevist Government which has invaded Georgia and overthrown the democratic Government of that country; if he is aware that the Bolshevists have thrown the Georgian Catholicos Patriarch into dungeons, together with other bishops and clergy, because they refused to sign a declaration prepared by the Tcheka falsely stating that religion was free in Georgia and that the appeal sent to Genoa was a forgery; and whether, in view of the recognition of the independence of Georgia by the Allied Governments and the League of Nations, the British Government can take any action by diplomatic methods to influence the Moscow Government to stop its present action in Georgia?

Mr. McNEILL: Although the Secretary of State has no official confirmation, he has no reason to doubt the substantial accuracy of the facts recited in the first two parts of the question, similar reports having reached the Foreign Office from a variety of well-informed sources. But, deeply as His Majesty's Government deplore the outrages and persecution referred to by the hon. Member, the Soviet Government has unfortunately established effective control over Georgian territory, which it is forcibly incorporating in the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics, and His Majesty's Government are only too well aware of the uselessness of attempting to influence the Soviet Government by diplomatic methods when unaccompanied by pressure such as in this case they have no means of exercising.

Mr. SNOWDEN: Should the question of the recognition of the Soviet Government arise, will the British Government,
in considering that matter, insist in the conditions of recognition, that the independence of these States should be recognised?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Have we any representative in Georgia, and is the hon. Gentleman aware that the present Russian Army in Georgia was invited there by the Georgian people, and that complete tranquillity reigns in that country?

Mr. McNEILL: In answer to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), I think he will realise that it would be impossible for me to give at present a pledge of that description, in regard to a situation which is quite hypothetical, but if it is any satisfaction to him for me to express my personal concurrence with his view, I do so gladly.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the hon. Gentleman answer my question as to whether we have any representative in Georgia?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member should put that question on the Paper.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I think it is a very proper question, in view of the statement in the question on the Paper.

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The new Coalition—Snowden and Ronald McNeill! Go over to the other side!

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "GLORIOUS."

Viscount CURZON: 9.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether His Majesty's Ship "Glorious" is on the Admiralty list of ships to be supplied with tobacco, wine, and spirits duty free; whether this privilege has now been withdrawn; and whether he can state what are the grounds for such action?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Commander Eyres-Monsell): The privilege of the supply duty free of wines, spirits, cigars, and cigarettes to His Majesty's ships is limited to seagoing ships, and the defini-
tion of "seagoing ships" for this purpose is a matter of discussion from time to time between the Admiralty and the Board of Customs. In these circumstances a shipment to H.M.S. "Glorious" was recently queried locally, but has now been authorised by the Board of Customs, pending a review of the general question.

GUN SALUTES.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 10.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what was the value of ammunition expended on gun salutes by the Royal Navy last year and what is the estimated expenditure this year; and whether, in the interests of economy and tranquillity, he will consider abolishing all gun salutes except those carried out when visiting a foreign saluting port, returning salutes by foreign warships, and saluting foreign admirals, sovereigns, and other potentates afloat?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: The cost of saluting ammunition is estimated at £2,400 per annum. Apart from the salute to foreign flags, salutes are fired to British, Dominion, Colonial, Diplomatic and Consular officers, and to Indian potentates and officials. The Admiralty are not prepared to consider the abolition of these salutes. There are also the salutes to British flag officers, to Members of the Royal Family and on fixed anniversaries, such as Empire Day, King's Birthday, etc. I cannot say what fraction of the sum of £2,400 is expended on salutes of this latter class, but it cannot be the greater proportion, and I do not think it is worth while abolishing an old established custom, which is followed by all other Navies, for the sake of the small sum involved.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Would the expression "other potentates" cover retired naval commanders?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: I am afraid not.

HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "BENBOW" (REFITTING).

Mr. W. ADAMSON: 11.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the reason for the delay in refitting His Majesty's Ship "Benbow" at Malta; and whether, seeing that the completion of the work upon the "Centurion" during this month would permit of the work on the "Benbow"
being proceeded with immediately so as to prevent unemployment in Admiralty employ, he is prepared to reconsider the position?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: The refit of His Majesty's Ship "Centurion" is due for completion to-day. His Majesty's Ship "Benbow" was due to be taken in hand on the 16th July, but I have no information at present as to whether the programme date has been adhered to. If any delay takes place it will be due to the exigencies of the Service and must be accepted.

WIDOWS' PENSIONS.

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 14.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the promise given in the reply to Item 12 of the 1922 Welfare General Requests, the Admiralty will render assistance in the preparation of a contributory scheme for widows' pensions, based on the principle of a graduated scale of contributions from the men and a contribution from canteen profits and canteen rebates, in order that such a scheme may be thoroughly discussed and presented to the 1924 Welfare Conference?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: The Admiralty are of opinion that the preparation of a scheme for widows' pensions might suitably, in the first instance, be considered by the Royal Naval Benevolent Trust and the attention of the Trust will be drawn to my hon. and gallant Friend's question. As already stated in reply to General Request No. 12, the Admiralty will be ready to give all possible assistance.

BOILERMAKER APPRENTICES.

Sir B. FALLE: 15.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that a number of boilermaker apprentices who have just completed their time are under notice to quit the dockyards through trade adjustment; and if he can arrange that these men get a little longer experience as men before being put out?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: I am sorry that, owing to the requirements of current work, it has become necessary to adjust the numbers in the engineering department of Portsmouth Dockyard. Twenty boilermakers, on completing their apprenticeship, will therefore have to be
discharged, and 28 labourers entered their place. It has recently been decided that in all such cases the ex-apprentices are to be employed for not less than one month as journeymen, and I regret that no longer extension can be allowed in the present case.

Sir B. FALLE: Is it possible for these men to be allowed to serve as labourers for a period should they wish to do so?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: I am afraid that would raise very awkward questions in the dockyard. If they were allowed, I do not think it would be to the greater convenience of those there.

PENSION CONTRIBUTION.

Sir B. FALLE: 18.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the principle laid down in the reply to Item 4 of the 1923 Welfare Requests, that the first period of 12 years' service is not pensionable service unless the engagement to complete time for pension is entered into, he will authorise the payment of the sums received from the Colonial Governments for ratings lent from the Imperial Navy to Colonial Navies as contributions to the pension funds to such of those ratings who have left the service at the expiration of their first continuous engagement?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: Pension contribution is claimed in respect of all naval ratings lent under agreement to Dominion, etc., Governments. The contribution is claimed at flat rates based upon actuarial calculations which take into account all contingencies for all men, including, not only average awards of long service and disability pensions, but also an average of failures to qualify for the award of a pension of any kind, e.g., men who do not re-engage to complete time for pension. If refund of contribution were allowed in the cases of men who fail to qualify for a pension or a gratuity based on service, then the rate of contribution would necessarily have to be considerably increased. The Admiralty do not consider that the existing arrangement should be disturbed.

OIL-TANK VESSELS.

Mr. HANNON: 19.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the amount of £114,600 in the Navy Estimates for 1922–23 for expenditure on the two oil-tank vessels under construction in His
Majesty's dockyards included any provision for overhead charges additional to those provisionally reckoned in the cost accounts; the amount of this sum which has already been expended; and the total cost of the two vessels and the total loss, if any, incurred on the selling price?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The whole amount mentioned was spent. The total cost of the two vessels, as so far ascertained, including provision for interest and insurance, was £794,209. On this basis, the total loss on the two vessels was £172,709.

ROYAL NAVAL COLLEGE, GREENWICH (STAFF).

Mr. MOSLEY: 16.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that at the Royal Naval College, Greenwich, a staff of 355 persons is employed in looking after 227 students; and whether he can see his way to effect economies by reducing the staff?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: The numbers quoted do not give a fair idea of the facts, as on the one hand they do not allow for the reduction of staff provided for in the Estimates for 1923–24, and, on the other hand, the average number of students is normally a good deal higher than that stated. The Board have, however, already decided to appoint a Committee to inquire into the overhead charges at Greenwich, with a view to further economies being made, if possible.

Viscount CURZON: Do not the figures also include the ground staff, which have nothing to do with the administration of the college?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: That is so. They include gardeners.

VICTUALLING DEPARTMENT.

Mr. MOSLEY: 17.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, since the number of men in the Navy has decreased from 151,000 in 1914 to 99,500 in the present year, while the number of men employed in the Victualling Department has increased in the same period from 133 to 160 and the cost from £28,168 to £55,418, he will state the reason for this large increase in cost?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: As the reply is somewhat long I will, with the
hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The reply is as follows:

The figures referred to by the hon. Member include, in respect of the current Estimates, the sum of £18,570 for bonus. Allowing for bonus, the slight increased average cost per head for staff during the interval is due to improvements in scales of salary for certain classes and to increments of salary granted in the ordinary course. As regards the numbers of staff for 1923–24, as compared with the numbers provided in 1914, I might remind the hon. Member that it has been stated before that Admiralty staffs before the War were, generally speaking, working under heavy pressure owing to the understaffing of the Departments. As regards the Victualling Department, the numbers of staff did not, before the War, increase directly in proportion to the increase of Fleet numbers and the reduction of staff is not expected to follow, pro rata, the reduction in Fleet numbers. Apart from this, the activities of the Victualling Department have been very largely increased owing to progressive improvements and to the higher standards of comfort provided for men of the Fleet. The work of the Department is also affected by the more varied and extended systems of messing, clothing allowances, etc., by the development of labour problems in the victualling yards and by trade difficulties in production and purchase of provisions and clothing.

HOSPITAL SHIPS (SICK-BERTH STAFF).

Sir C. KINLOCH - COOKE: 20.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty why mental and zymotic emoluments are not paid to the sick-berth staff in the hospital ships of the Royal Navy; and will he consider the advisability of making such payments, seeing that these cases are now dealt with in the hospital ship stationed in the Eastern Mediterranean?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: The question of paying these allowances in hospital ships will be considered.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: When will the period of consideration begin?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: It has already started.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH FREE STATE.

ADMIRALTY PROPERTY.

Colonel GRETTON: 12.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if the terms of the Treaty or the Irish Constitution Act entailed the surrender by the British Admiralty to the Irish Free State of property or freehold of the Admiralty establishments at Berehaven, Haulbowline, or Lough Swilly; and was the surrender advised or approved by the Board of Admiralty?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: The Admiralty property at Berehaven was expressly reserved under the Treaty. The remaining property of the Admiralty within the territory of the Irish Free State is transferred to the Free State under Article 11 of the Free State Constitution. The Admiralty advised and assented to the facilities for naval purposes specified in the Annexe to the Treaty; the provision for the transfer of the freehold property not reserved under that annexe was agreed to by His Majesty's Government, the Board of Admiralty as such not being specifically consulted, there being no important naval interest involved.

Colonel Sir CHARLES YATE: Were the Admiral's house and the naval hospital included in the property handed over?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: I think the answer is perfectly plain. What was not specifically reserved under the Treaty has been handed over.

Sir C. YATE: Does that include the naval hospital and the Admiral's house?

Colonel GRETTON: 13.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if there are at the present time any staff of officers and men or care and maintenance parties at Berehaven, Haulbowline, or Lough Swilly; and are there any stores or other property of the Board of Admiralty at all or any of these places?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: Admiralty property on Bere Island is in charge of the military. There is a caretaker for the oil fuel installation at Berehaven. The Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland are being asked to undertake the work of care and maintenance of the remaining property on the mainland at Berehaven. One signal
station at Queenstown is in charge of the military. The other has been destroyed by fire. No stores or other property elsewhere in Free State territory have been retained by the Admiralty.

Colonel GRETTON: Are the Commissioners officers of the Irish Free State or officers of His Majesty's Government?

Viscount CURZON: Who is getting the benefit of the golf course at Berehaven constructed by the Fleet?

Sir W. DAVISON: The right hon. Gentleman says that these are in charge of the military. Does he mean British military forces, and, if so, how many British troops are still there?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: Our military forces.

Colonel GRETTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question as to whether the Commissioners are officers of the Free State Government or of the British Government?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: The Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland.

RECORDS.

Sir H. CRAIK: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether there is statutory authority for the handing over of Irish records, the property of this nation, to the Government of the Free State by Order in Council?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I have been asked to reply to this question. The statutory authority for the Order in Council, to which the right hon. Member refers, will be found in Section 1 of the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act, 1922.

Sir H. CRAIK: What is the authority for violating this fundamental rule of law, that no property of the nation can be parted with except by the authority of Parliament?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: It was done by the express authority of Parliament, by the Statute of 31st March, 1922, which empowered the Government of the day to make an Order in Council, which was laid on the Table of the House for 21 days and expressly transferred these records to the Provisional Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

STATISTICS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 21.
asked the Minister of Labour how many persons, male and female, respectively, are at present unemployed in Great Britain and Northern Ireland; how many of these are juveniles; whether he has any information as to the numbers of persons partially employed or working short time; and whether he has any information as to the number of persons unemployed who are not on the live registers of the Employment Exchanges?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow): At 2nd July there were registered as wholly unemployed at Employment Exchanges in Great Britain and Northern Ireland 933,156 men, 35,629 boys, 228,290 women and 32,614 girls, making a total of 1,229,689. There were also 65,437 persons working systematic short time and claiming unemployment benefit for intervals of unemployment. I am unable to state the total number of persons partially employed or working short time or to give an estimate as to the number of unemployed persons who are not on the live registers of Employment Exchanges.

Sir ERNEST HILEY: 30.
asked the Minister of Labour how many of the men registered as unemployed on 1st January last have found employment, respectively, in their own industries, in relief works inaugurated by the Government or local authorities, or in works commenced by the railway companies at the request of the late Prime Minister?

Sir M. BARLOW: At 9th July the number registered at the Employment Exchanges as wholly unemployed was 296,778 less than the figure recorded on 1st January, and this reduction probably represents fairly accurately the net decrease in the total volume of unemployment during that interval. I regret, however, that the available information does not enable me to distribute the figure under the headings suggested in the hon. Member's question.

BUILDING TRADES.

Mr. HERRIOTTS: 23.
asked the Minister of Labour how many building-trade operatives were in receipt of unemploy-
ment benefit in the years 1919 to 1923, respectively, in the County of Durham; and what was the amount of benefit paid?

Sir M. BARLOW: These particulars would have to be extracted specially, and I am reluctant to incur the expense which would be involved. I hope, therefore, the hon. Member will not press for the figures.

JUVENILE CENTRES.

Mr. EDE: 24.
asked the Minister of Labour if he has invited or intends to invite the Surrey Education Committee to reopen the juvenile unemployment centre at Wimbledon next September?

Sir M. BARLOW: I have invited all education authorities for higher education, including the Surrey Education Committee, to submit proposals for reopening juvenile unemployment centres in September if unemployment among juveniles in their areas is still acute.

DOCK WORKERS.

Mr. T. SMITH: 28.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that at Goole registered dock workers are required to sign twice daily at the Employment Exchange in order to qualify for unemployment benefit, which is regarded as unjust and unnecessary and has caused resignations from the employment committee; whether this practice of signing twice daily is in accord with the policy of his Department; and, if so, will he consider a modification of that policy at an early date?

Sir M. BARLOW: In order that a proper check may be kept on the unemployment of dock workers claiming unemployment benefit, it is the policy of my Department, wherever practicable, to require them to prove unemployment by attendance and signature twice daily. This procedure (which is also in operation in other ports) has been in force at Goole for about a year and, while I am aware that objection has been taken to it at meetings of the local employment committee, no sufficient evidence has been brought forward to show that the procedure is unnecessary.

Mr. T. SMITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman do his best to bring about a conference between employers and workmen in that district on the question of
registration? There is a good deal of feeling in this matter, and it is causing a great deal of unrest among the dockers.

Mr. SEXTON: Is it not the fact that the workmen out of employment in some places are only required to register twice a week, and, in some cases, at most once a day? If the area is small should not once a day be sufficient?

Sir M. BARLOW: In regard to the second supplementary question, of course it is true that in some unemployment it is usual to require registration once a day or where the distance would seem to need it a certain number of times a week is allowable; but as both the hon. Gentlemen are aware employment at the docks is somewhat differently arranged, and on the plan generally of two shifts a day: that is why the double registration is necessary.

Mr. SMITH: May I press my question?

Sir M. BARLOW: As to the promotion of a conference? The whole question of the registration and the decasualisation of labour is very important; also the question of registration. I cannot promise a conference in this particular port, but the whole matter is one that is having very careful consideration.

BOILERMAKERS.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 29.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that James Kerr, 4, North Bank Street, Clydebank, and James Doherty, 3, Hume Street, Clydebank, were locked out at the commencement of the boilermakers' dispute and resumed work at the request of the firm to assist apprentice boilermakers to finish the job, and working thereafter for a period of five weeks they were dismissed because there was no further work to give them; and if he will take steps to grant these men the benefit which has been denied them by the Clydebank Unemployment Exchange?

Sir M. BARLOW: I am having inquiry made, and will let the hon. Member know the result as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN, KING'S ROLL.

Sir CHARLES CAYZER: 26.
asked the Minister of Labour what steps are being
taken to render more useful and effective the existing machinery of the King's Roll; whether he has any records showing the numbers of disabled men throughout the country who are on this roll in their various centres still awaiting employment; and whether he will undertake a concerted effort towards making the machinery of the King's Roll really effective for the purposes for which it was created?

Sir M. BARLOW: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply on the subject of the King's Roll given to the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham on 9th July. If the hon. Member will repeat his question next week I hope to be able to furnish him with the information desired.

Sir C. YATE: Has the list of authorities and firms who are not on the King's Roll been published yet?

Sir M. BARLOW: The King's Roll National Council are reporting to me shortly. I shall then be in a better position to answer inquiries on this and similar matters when I have received their report.

Sir C. YATE: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the "British Legion Journal" for March last? I think he will find the list published there?

Sir M. BARLOW: I have seen the publication to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman refers. But the King's Roll National Council have the matter under their careful consideration, and are reporting to me almost at once.

Oral Answers to Questions — COST OF LIVING INDEX.

Captain BENN: 27.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can make any statement as to the inquiry into the retail index figure?

Sir M. BARLOW: I have nothing to add to my reply to questions by the hon. Members for Plaistow and Whitechapel on 4th July.

Captain BENN: In view of the importance of the inquiry will there be a discussion in this House?

Sir M. BARLOW: I am not quite certain to what the inquiry refers. I should think the time may, and will, come when the basis of computation will be subject to reconsideration, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman will bear in mind that the representatives on the other side of the House have themselves expressed the view that it is undesirable at present to hold such an inquiry.

Lieut. - Colonel WATTS - MORGAN: Is the Minister aware that there is a strong desire that another computation should be adopted of, say, standard types of families of four, five, or six persons and compared with pre-War prices in respect of provisions?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman had better put that question down.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES (TRADE UNION MEETINGS).

Mr. HAYDAY: 32.
asked the Minister of Labour whether it has been decided to increase the fee charged for holding trade union branch meetings in Employment Exchanges from 1s. per meeting to 2s. 6d. where the branch has less than 50 members, and to 5s. where the branch has a membership exceeding 50; and, if so, whether he will state the reason for imposing this substantial increase?

Sir M. BARLOW: The increased scale of charges referred to was introduced in August, 1921, at all Exchanges at which special accommodation for meetings was provided, and has been applied subsequently to other Exchanges as and when special accommodation was made available. Where the only accommodation available consists of the ordinary waiting rooms or clerks' rooms the previous charge of 1s. has been maintained. The increase was necessary because the charge of 1s. did not nearly cover the additional cost of heating, lighting, cleaning and attendance occasioned by a meeting.

Mr. HAYDAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether or no the original charge was not looked upon as merely a charge for letting and a matter of convenience for the Exchanges, to attract associations to meet at the Exchange buildings?

Sir M. BARLOW: There was a certain amount of mutual convenience about it, but I think it will be realised by the members of the branches that the charge is exceedingly small.

Mr. HAYDAY: In view of the dislocation of the associations and their inability to get back to suitable premises, will the right hon. Gentleman not reconsider the matter, for the annual charge is really a most considerable sum?

Sir M. BARLOW: The charge is really a very small item; and I do not think, under all the circumstances of the case, that even the increased charges are unreasonable.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILK FEEDING (BIRMINGHAM EXPERIMENT).

Mr. HURD: 33.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can state in general terms the results of the milk-feeding experiments among Birmingham Council school children, showing the physiological value of fresh milk as an article of diet, and particularly the effect on children suffering from malnutrition of the addition to their dietary of a pint of fresh milk daily; and whether he will cause to be prepared and published a Report on the experiments for the encouragement of co-operative movements of the same kind between other educational, agricultural, and health authorities?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): It would not be possible, within the limits of an answer to a question in this House, to state even in general terms the results of the experiments referred to in the first part of the question. As regards the second part, I think the question of publishing a Report on the results of these experiments is a matter for the authority responsible for the investigation. I may add that the Ministry of Health, in conjunction with the Medical Research Council, are conducting investigations into the nutritive properties of milk in the feeding of children, and the question of issuing a Report on these investigations will be considered.

Mr. HURD: Will the investigation be of the same partial and misleading kind as that which was held in reference to condensed milk?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware of any partial and misleading investigation being made.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Can any good be done in reference to milk supply until the Act of 1915 is put into operation?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is a matter of opinion.

Major PAGET: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a pamphlet published on this subject has been sent to Members of Parliament?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

MINERS' HOMES, DURHAM (RATES).

Mr. HERRIOTTS: 34.
asked the Minister of Health if he will consider the exemption from rates of aged miners' homes in County Durham which have been erected and are maintained almost entirely by miners' contributions.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There is no legal authority for the exemption of the houses referred to from rating, and I am afraid I could not undertake to introduce legislation for the purpose.

RENT RESTRICTIONS ACT.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 35.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the complicated form in which the amendments of the existing Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Act have been made, he will publish as soon as possible, for the guidance of the public, a simple statement of the chief alterations which will come into force next month?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As I stated during the discussion on the Bill now before Parliament, I propose, when that Bill has passed, to reprint the Act of 1920 with the Amendments made by the new Act.

Mr. THOMSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that that will be enough in view of the uncertainty as to the meaning of some of the Clauses that have passed this House?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. Member means that I should publish my
own ideas as to the meaning of each Clause, I think that that would be a very undesirable course.

WORKING-CLASS HOUSES (DURHAM).

Mr. HERRIOTTS: 37.
asked the Minister of Health what is the total number of working-class houses that have been built by local authorities in the County of Durham in the years 1919 to 1923, respectively; and what is the number that the local authorities have applied for sanction to build?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

Under the State Assisted Housing Scheme authorised by the Housing, Town Planning Act, 1919, local authorities in the County of Durham completed the following numbers of houses in each of the years in question:


1919
Nil.


1920
44


1921
1,591


1922
4,381


1923 (up to 1st July)
690



6,706


In addition, a further 655 houses which had been authorised were either under construction or had not been commenced on the 1st July.

The number of houses in respect of which applications have been received from local authorities in the county under the provisions of the new Housing Bill is 1,447.

PURCHASE OF LAND (LOCAL AUTHORITIES).

Mr. ROBERT RICHARDSON: 38.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has received and considered a suggestion that local authorities should be encouraged to purchase land for housing purposes; that each plot might be offered free or for a nominal rent to any person, other than a speculative builder, for the purpose of building a house thereon; that the plot should remain the property of the local authority and not be transferable, and that each person given the offer of a plot should undertake to build
a house within a certain time limit or forfeit the use of the land; and whether any action has or can be taken to promote house building on such lines?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have received from time to time suggestions on the lines indicated. I see no particular advantage in the suggestion of a reduction of ground rent, which is not in fact contemplated in the Housing Bill now before Parliament. A local authority can, however, purchase land and after development lease the plots to persons intending to build houses thereon and, subject to such conditions as may be laid down, assistance may be given to the intending occupier in the shape of a lump sum contribution to the cost of the house. Further assistance by way of loan may be given under Clause 5 of the Bill.

ALNWICK MILITIA DEPOT.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 41.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the old Militia depot at Alnwick has been standing empty for some years; and, as several families could be housed there, will he, in view of the shortage of housing accommodation in that district, arrange with the War Office for these premises to be at once utilised for housing purposes?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness): I have been asked to reply. The question of the possibility of disposing of these barracks has already been taken up.

Mr. THOMSON: Do the Government consider that they are setting a good example to private owners of property in withholding from occupation empty property, as in the present case?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: There is no question of withholding empty property, as the hon. Member would know if he had listened to the answer to the question, but obviously we could not dispose of this property until we were satisfied that it was not wanted in the public interest?

Mr. THOMSON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that these buildings have been empty for a considerable time?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: That is exactly why we are taking the question under review.

RENTS (TOTTENHAM).

Mr. R. MORRISON: 43.
asked the Minister of Health for what reason he has recently refused permission to the Tottenham Urban District Council to accede to a request from their tenants urging a reduction in the rents of the council houses; and, in view of the general decrease in wages which has taken place and the difficulty of the tenants in finding other accommodation or in paying the present rents except by depriving themselves of the necessaries of life, whether he will reconsider this decision?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am advised that the present rents are not excessive, regard being had to the prevailing rents for comparable houses in the locality, and I am unable, therefore, to agree to a reduction. It will be open to the Council, if they so desire, to have the matter referred to the rents tribunal.

Mr. MORRISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the rents in many cases are 40 per cent. of the tenant's income, that the tenant is not allowed to take in lodgers and that he cannot find accommodation elsewhere?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot add anything to the answer which I have given, but if there is dissatisfaction the proper course is to have the matter referred to the Rents Tribunal to take the matter into consideration.

BUILDING MATERIALS (PRICES).

Mr. MORRISON: 44.
also asked the Minister of Health whether he has any information as to any proposed reduction in the prices of light castings controlled by the National Light Castings Association, in view of the Interim Report of the Departmental Committee appointed to survey the prices of building materials, which indicated that a reduction was almost due?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The question of prices of light castings is still under the consideration of the Committee on Building Materials, who are in communication with the association concerned. I have no further information at present.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the price of pig iron has decreased by 5s. a ton since the issue of the Report?

Captain BENN: 51.
asked the Minister of Health if he can give an estimate of the present cost of the materials in a cottage, taking the cost in September, 1920, as 100?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is estimated that if the costs of the material in a cottage in September, 1920, be taken as 100, the present costs would be put at 58.

ASSISTED SCHEMES.

Captain BENN: 52.
asked the Minister of Health the number of houses approved for construction to date under the new Bill?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The number of houses approved to date which Will rank for assistance under the new Bill is 16,215.

Mr. R. DAVIES: How many of those houses have been built by municipalities and how many by private enterprise?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I should require notice of that question.

Mr. EDE: Has the Minister figures to show which of the houses are being built for sale and which are being built for letting?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. Member chooses to put down that question, I will find out.

TORRANCE OF CAMPSIE, STIRLINGSHIRE.

Mr. JOHNSTON: 71.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health if he is aware of the great housing shortage in Torrance of Campsie, Stirlingshire; that a large proportion of houses are nominally tenanted by non-residents; that young couples desirous of being married canot find suitable housing accommodation; and if he can take any steps to call the attention of the local authority to the urgency of remedying this state of affairs?

Captain ELLIOT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, Scotland): My attention had not previously been called to the question of housing accommodation in the place referred to. I am having a communication addressed to the local authority asking for their views and inquiring what action they propose to take to remedy any shortage of houses that may exist.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (TRADE ADVERTISEMENTS).

Sir THOMAS BENNETT: 36.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the widespread dissatisfaction in the medical profession with the necessity under which they are still placed of distributing trade advertisements with certificates under the National Health Insurance Act, these forms will be withdrawn without further delay?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to a series of similar questions on the 13th June.

Sir T. BENNETT: Is it not the case that these objectionable forms are still being sent out?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think that any are now being sent out from the Stationery Office, though it is possible that insurance committees still have some stocks in their hands, but new forms which do not include the advertisements are now being printed in the Stationery Office.

Oral Answers to Questions — SMALL-POX AND VACCINATION.

Major HARVEY: 39.
asked the Minister of Health, seeing that the London County Council has a medical officer in attendance at the new County Hall for the purpose of vaccinating any of the members who desire to be so treated, whether he will, in view of the increasing prevalence of small-pox in this country, consider the advisability of recommending the adoption of a similar practice in this House as a precautionary measure?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer is in the negative. Hon. Members who desire to be vaccinated should consult their own medical advisers or apply to the public vaccinators of the districts in which they reside.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 40.
asked the Minister of Health if any information is available to show whether there has been any increase or decrease in the number of cases of small-pox and in the number of deaths from small-pox per 1,000 of the population in the last quinquennial period as compared with 50 years ago?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No figures are available to enable a comparison to be made between the number of cases of small-pox in the last quinquennial period and in the period 1868–1872. The number of deaths from small-pox in the quinquennium 1868–72 was 48,107, whilst in 1918–22 it was 92, giving a rate per 1,000 of the population in those two periods as follows:


1868–72
.4274


1918–22
.0005

Mr. THOMSON: What is the right hon. Gentleman's authority for the statement which he made the other day, that there had been an increase of small-pox, with the reduction in vaccination?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My authority was the figures which I gave the hon. Member.

Mr. THOMSON: Do the figures which the right hon. Gentleman has just given confirm that statement?

Mr. LEACH: 53.
asked the Minister of Health the percentage of births vaccinated in the period 1872 to 1881 and the number of deaths from small-pox registered during that period with the small-pox death rate per million living, and the same figures for the period of 1912 to 1921?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The particulars asked for by the hon. Member are contained in the answer given on the 16th instant to the hon. Member for South Poplar (Mr. March), except that the small-pox death rate given in that answer is the rate per 100,000 population. The rate per million living can of course be obtained by multiplying the rate given in the previous answer by 10.

Mr. LEACH: Would not these figures prove that extra measures of sanitation are much more important than vaccination as a protection against small-pox?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter of opinion.

Mr. SNOWDEN: 55.
asked the Minister of Health how many deaths from small-pox occurred in the years from 1872 to 1889; what was the percentage of children vaccinated during these years; how many deaths from small-pox have occurred in the last three years; and what percentage of children have been vaccinated?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The figures asked for by the hon. Member are contained in the answer given on the 16th instant to the hon. Member for South Poplar (Mr. March), and are printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. FLANAGAN: 56.
asked the Minister of Health if, in view of the prevalence and great increase in the number of cases of small-pox, he will consider the advisability of supplying Government calf lymph to all private qualified medical practitioners who apply for it, as the material they now have to use may not be up to the recognised Government standard?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: This matter has been considered from time to time, but as at present advised, I doubt whether it is practicable to take action in the direction indicated.

Oral Answers to Questions — FEVER HOSPITAL STAFFS (SUPERANNUATION).

Mr. HAYDAY: 42.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that an employé in a fever hospital pays for superannuation under the provisions of the Poor Law Officers Act; that if for any reason the employé is transferred to a mental hospital, even if it is controlled by the same authority, he comes under the Asylum Officers Act for superannuation purposes; that as there are no provisions in either Act for transfer value the employé loses credit for all the payments he made under the Poor Law Officers Act, although, if he were dismissed, instead of transferred, he would get his payments returned; and whether he will take action to bring these two Acts into conformity with the provisions of the Local Government and other Officers Superannuation Act, 1922?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware of the difficulty to which the hon. Member refers, but I am afraid I cannot promise to introduce legislation dealing with the matter at the present time.

Mr. HAYDAY: Has not the right hon. Gentleman some power to carry some revenue to the credit of a person so transferred without having to lose all his contributions and benefits under the Superannuation Act?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There is no such power at present. It would require further legislation.

Mr. HAYDAY: Could not the local authority arrange with the right hon. Gentleman to meet such a set of circumstances?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that when a person is transferred by direction of the Board he does transfer his benefits with him, but not if he gives notice himself.

Mr. HAYDAY: The right hon. Gentleman will realise that if a person is discharged he would have refunded to him all the payments, but by being transferred he loses all his years of payment?

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH OF SCOTLAND (ENDOWMENTS).

Sir HENRY CRAIK: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government, either before the Recess or in an Autumn Session, to propose legislation to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee on the endowments of the Church in Scotland, presided over by Lord Haldane?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): It is the intention of the Government to introduce in the forthcoming Autumn Session a Bill to deal with the property and endowments of the Church of Scotland.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.

Sir EDWIN STOCKTON: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether it has been suggested on behalf of the Dominions that, for general convenience and the stimulation of good feeling, occasional meetings of the Imperial Conference might very well be held in one or other of the Dominion capitals; and whether, in any case, he will ascertain the present point of view of the Dominions on such a policy?

The PRIME MINISTER: The suggestion is one with which I am familiar. There is no definite arrangement by which the meetings of the Imperial Conference should invariably take place in London, and the place of meeting must be determined by the convenience of all concerned.
At the forthcoming Conference, the date and place of the next meeting will be among the subjects which will come up for discussion.

Mr. HURD: Will it be brought before the Conference that there is a prospect of flying to Canada in two days, and to India in four, as a means of bringing this about?

The PRIME MINISTER: I hope not.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUBBER TYRES (IMPORTATION).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the 30-inch by 31½-inch tyre and tube, Ford size, are being sold in this country at the manufacturer's price of about 40s.; whether he is aware that the cost of producing the tyre alone in this country is £2 6s. 9d.; and what measure does the Government propose to take to safeguard the manufacturers and workpeople engaged with the British tyre industry?

Mr. HANNON: 49 and 50.
asked the Prime Minister (1) whether his attention has been called to the recent reduction of 10 per cent. in the cost of rubber tyres sold in this country by an important Continental manufacturing firm; whether he is aware that this reduction brings the price at which these Continental tyres are offered considerably below the cost of production in this country; what steps His Majesty's Government proposes to take to save the British tyre industry from disaster, consequent upon competition based upon exchange values favourable to the foreign producer;
(2) whether his attention has been called to the recent enormous increase in the importation of American motor tyres into this country; whether he is aware that the importation of these tyres is responsible for the unemployment of between 25,000 and 30,000 workpeople and the consequent weekly circulation in wages of between £75,000 and £90,000 in Great Britain, and that these tyres are sold retail in England at a price lower than the cost of production in this country; and whether, in view of the menace of increased unemployment in the forthcoming winter, His Majesty's Government is proposing to take any steps to safeguard this industry and to provide employment for the workpeople concerned?

The PRIME MINISTER: This question will receive careful consideration by the Government.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to honour the pledge given by himself or his predecessor at the Election, not to alter the fiscal system of this country in this Parliament?

Mr. MOSLEY: Did not the Prime Minister, during the passage of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, give a definite pledge that Part II of the Act was not to be applied against French goods—the principal country engaged in the manufacture of tyres?

Mr. HANNON: Is it not the first consideration of the Prime Minister to see that the people of this country get employment?

Captain BENN: Will the right hon. Gentleman define what he means by "giving careful consideration"? Are the Government contemplating a Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. and gallant Member has been in this House much longer than I have.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the pledge of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor that the fiscal system will not be altered in this Parliment be honoured?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think that question arises here.

Mr. MOSLEY: Can the Prime Minister state if he proposes to take action, should action be taken under Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think the time has come for answering that question yet.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS (VENTILATION).

Mr. HARDIE: 57.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether the air inlets and outlets, in connection with the ventilation of the House, have been corrected; and how soon the air inlets will be taken above the present Terrace level?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir John Baird): I must await the results of experiments, which will be carried out during the Recess, before forecasting any changes that may eventually be made in the ventilation system.

Mr. HARDIE: Will the right hon. Gentleman attempt to increase the pressure upon these outlets underneath the seats and deal, correspondingly, as far as possible, with the inlets?

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Members of Parliament are this afternoon, for the first time, in this Chamber breathing fresh air, free from dead strepto-cocci, simply because the windows have been opened? Will the right hon. Gentleman also consider opening the windows on the other side of the House during Divisions, so as to have a free passage of air through the Chamber?

Sir J. BAIRD: I am afraid if I were to follow the advice so kindly given me by hon. Members in various parts of the House, I should require a much larger staff to carry out the various suggestions made. I am obliged to do the best I can, in the light of experience, and with the staff at my disposal.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of himself going down to the Stock Exchange, and seeing how it is ventilated, and adopting the same principle here?

Sir W. DAVISON: Is it not quite satisfactory with the windows open?

Sir J. BAIRD: I understand that people who are not members of the Stock Exchange receive a very cool welcome there?

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I thought coolness was what we wanted.

Mr. MORRISON: (later): On a point of Order. May I call attention to the very strong odour of turpentine around these benches?

Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. Member's neighbour (Mr. Hardie) is already producing alcohol for fuel. The First Commissioner of Works will look into the matter?

Oral Answers to Questions — STORM DAMAGE, SHEFFIELD (HUTS).

Mr. PONSONBY: 58.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that, in the recent storm, considerable damage was done by flood and fire to the huts in the Tyler Street district in Sheffield; what immediate steps the Office of Works are taking to repair the damage and safeguard the huts from flooding after storms; and whether the Government will consider replacing the temporary sheds by permanent houses?

Sir J. BAIRD: Yes, Sir, and my officers took immediate steps to provide other accommodation and furniture for the tenants, who were happily uninjured, but had to leave their houses. Repairs to the damaged huts and roadways are in hand. These houses were erected to meet a war-time emergency, and my Department has no power to replace them by permanent structures.

Mr. PONSONBY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the disgraceful character of the surroundings and lighting of these huts and that the town council cannot be expected to spend money on the surroundings because the huts are of a temporary character; and cannot he do something further in regard to the matter?

Sir J. BAIRD: I am quite prepared to look into this matter, in the light of the hon. Member's supplementary question. There is always difficulty in dealing with temporary structures, which, as their name implies, are only intended to carry on for a certain time.

Mr. CECIL WILSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that the huts are in a very exposed position and that there is no protection whatever, so far as the lighting is concerned, if a fire were to take place; and can anything be done to make them more safe?

Sir J. BAIRD: I will also look into that point.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

CROSS ROADS, EWELL.

Mr. EDE: 60.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport if he is aware that a number of fatal
accidents have taken place at the cross roads on the Reigate road and Monger's Lane, Ewell; that the Epsom urban council and the Epsom rural council have collaborated on a scheme to create an alternative route between Epsom and Croydon; whether this joint scheme has been submitted to the Ministry; and what is the present attitude of his Department towards it?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I am aware of a fatal accident which took place at this crossroads in September, 1922, and of two non-fatal accidents which occurred this summer. These have been the subject of investigation by an officer of my Department, who has also been in touch with the local authorities concerned regarding the construction of a by-pass road. As soon as this project is submitted in a definite form to my Department, it shall receive the fullest consideration.

Mr. EDE: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that I myself, as a member of one of these authorities, went on a deputation to his Ministry some six months ago and we are still not sure what is the attitude of the Ministry towards the scheme?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it not the fact that there have been many serious accidents at this particular cross-roads; and while the Ministry is making up its mind, would not a couple of mirrors go a long way towards reducing the danger?

Colonel ASHLEY: My hon. Friend is misinformed. It is not a question of the Ministry making up its mind, but of the local authorities making up their minds. When the local authorities do so and submit a really definite scheme, it will receive a full and immediate consideration.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Will the Minister make that suggestion to them while they are making up their minds?

Mr. EDE: May I have an answer to my supplementary question? Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the local authorities have very firmly made up their minds and are wondering whether the Ministry has a mind to make up?

Colonel ASHLEY: Then will the local authorities communicate their decision to us?

TRAMWAY SERVICE, MITCHAM AND CROYDON.

Mr. EDE: 61.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport if he is aware that the London County Council tramway service at Tooting Junction and the service connecting Tooting Junction and Croydon come within a few yards of one another but do not connect, thereby preventing the running of through cars from London to Mitcham and Croydon by the Tooting Junction route; and whether, in view of the inconvenience caused to the public by this lack of arrangement, he will suggest to all the parties and authorities concerned that the two services should be connected?

Colonel ASHLEY: I understand that this matter is at present under discussion between the tramway authorities concerned, and that it is hoped that it will be possible to arrive at some arrangement under which through services will be run between London and Mitcham.

FRUIT AND VEGETABLES.

Mr. MOSLEY: 62.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport whether, in view of the recommendation of the Departmental Committee on Distribution and Prices of Agricultural Produce, he will make representations to the railway companies with the object of inducing them to adopt a cash-on-delivery system for small consignments of fruit and vegetables?

Colonel ASHLEY: The question whether the railway companies should adopt a cash-on-delivery system for small consignments of fruit and vegetables is one for settlement by the companies themselves. I understand, however, that the Interim Reports of the Committee to which the hon. Member refers are being considered by the railway companies, and I am sending them a copy of his question and this reply.

ROAD VEHICLES (WEIGHTS AND SIZES).

Colonel GRETTON: 63.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport if there is any restriction upon the weights or sizes of vehicles used
upon the public roads; and if it is proposed to limit the weight of vehicles so used, in view of the wear and tear to the public roads?

Colonel ASHLEY: There are numerous restrictions upon the weights and sizes of road vehicles laid down in the Locomotives and Motor Car Acts, and in the Roads Act and in the Orders made there-under. The restrictions are too detailed to be dealt with in answer to a question, but they are summarised on pages 7 to 14 of the Second Interim Report of the Committee on Taxation and Regulation of Road Vehicles, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

WATERLOO AND CITY RAILWAY (OVERCROWDING).

Mr. GILBERT: 64.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport whether his attention has been called to the great overcrowding at certain hours of the day on the Waterloo and City Tube Railway, and can he take any steps to provide more accommodation at these hours; is he aware of the bad access and egress for passengers using the Bank station on this railway; that both streams of traffic meet in the long slope to the platforms; and can he bring any pressure to bear on the company in order to improve this exit in the interests of the safety and convenience of the public?

Colonel ASHLEY: My attention had not previously been called to these matters, but I will make inquiries, and let the hon. Members know the result.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR MEDALS (HOME SERVICE).

Captain SHIPWRIGHT: 65.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that British war medals were given to those who served on the coast defence batteries, and that the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve Anti-Aircraft Section were awarded the same medal for operations against enemy aircraft in London and for Home stations, there is any reason why it should not be given to the Royal Engineers, Royal Artillery, and Royal Air Force units for precisely similar services?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: It has always been recognised that the conditions governing the award of the British War
Medal are not identical for the Navy and the other Services. The general principle adopted for the Army and Royal Air Force is to confine the grant of the War Medal for home service to those individuals who were actively engaged with the enemy. This principle has been duly carried out, and applies to those who served in the coast defence batteries, and I regret that I can hold out no expectation that it will be varied. There is no record, in the case of the antiaircraft personnel referred to, that they were actively engaged with the enemy.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR RISKS COMPENSATION (SEAMEN).

Mr. PETO: 66.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that under the war risks compensation scheme masters, officers, and seamen of the merchant service disabled as a result of the War have had their disability allowances substantially reduced on finding employment, or on being certified fit for light employment; whether he is aware of the fact that the Ministry of Pensions entirely disavows such a principle, and compensates ex-service men for the disability incurred whether the pensioners have obtained employment or not; and whether, in view of their services during the War, he will take steps in ensuring that the masters, officers, and seamen of the British merchant service shall be put on precisely the same footing in this matter as those engaged in the Navy and Army?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Viscount Wolmer): The War risks compensation scheme has to be administered in conjunction with the Workmen's Compensation Act, and the principle embodied in that Act, namely, that of granting compensation for loss of earning capacity, was incorporated in the compensation scheme when the scheme was framed in 1915. It is not proposed to make any alteration in that principle at this late date, and I may mention that while certain persons, as my hon. Friend points out, receive less under the compensation scheme than they would receive under the Royal Warrants administered by the Ministry of Pensions, in other cases a
larger disablement allowance is paid than would be paid in a similar case by the Ministry of Pensions.

Mr. PETO: I beg to give the Noble Lord notice that I propose to raise this question on the Vote to-day.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL ALCOHOL.

Mr. HARDIE: 67.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that we are dependent on outside sources for a supply of liquid fuel, he will consider the question of immediately developing the manufacture of industrial alcohol in this country?

Viscount WOLMER: This question is discussed in the Interim Memorandum and Second Memorandum by the Fuel Research Board on Fuel for Motor Transport, published by His Majesty's Stationery Office in 1920 and 1921 respectively. Investigations by the Fuel Research Board are still proceeding with a view to discovering a suitable method of manufacturing alcohol from materials available in this country and in the Empire.

Mr. HARDIE: Is not the Noble Lord aware that, with the knowledge that we have now, there is no need for any further investigation, but that we can go on and make industrial alcohol; and will his Department, in the interests of the trade of this country, see that the plant is allowed to work continuously instead of intermittently, and thereby make this country the equal of other countries in this respect?

Viscount WOLMER: I am sorry to say that the Fuel Research Board do not agree with the views of the hon. Member.

Mr. HARDIE: I am not asking the Fuel Research Board, but am asking the Board of Trade if they cannot take steps, seeing that they know that this plant is in existence for the purpose of making industrial alcohol, and is only prevented from making it in large quantities by the stupid system which prevails.

Mr. SPEAKER: We can discuss that this afternoon.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOSS OF S.S. "RANEE."

Mr. SHINWELL: 68.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the court of inquiry into the sinking of the s.s. "Ranee" off the east coast of the Malay Peninsula reported in regard to the inadequate number of officers on this and similar vessels; whether the matter has been reported to his Department; and whether it is proposed to amend Section 92 of the Merchant Shipping Act so as to remedy the existing state of affairs?

Viscount WOLMER: The s.s. "Ranee" was sunk by collision with the Siamese s.s. "Boribat," and the court of inquiry found that the collision was due to the default of the master of the "Boribat." The court state that the "Ranee" had her full complement of officers, and the comments to which the hon. Member refers relate to the officering of the foreign vessel, not the British vessel.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is it not the case that the full complement of officers is regulated by Section 92 of the Merchant Shipping Act, which provides that not more than two officers of a certain certificated capacity should be employed on vessels of this size, and have there not been very strong adverse comments with regard to this Section of the Merchant Shipping Act all along the China coast?

Viscount WOLMER: With regard to this particular ship, the court found that all the requirements of the law had been carried out.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINE FLOODING, STAFFORDSHIRE.

Mr. HARDIE: 70.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether, in relation to the flooding of a mine in Staffordshire recently, he can now give information as to the cause of flooding; whether there were drawings of the workings where the water was lodged; and who was responsible for a bore not being kept in front of the working face?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I have been asked to reply. The underground roads affected by the inrush of water at Shut End No. 5 Colliery on 21st April last have now been cleared and an inspection has
been made. The inrush came from an accumulation of water in old workings to the north-east of Shut End No. 5 pit. Drawings of the workings through which the water reached No. 5 pit were in the possession of the management, but it is not yet clear where the water was lodged before it burst through. The old workings immediately adjoining the scene of the accident had been travelled three months before, and as no water was found no danger was apprehended, and no regular boring was carried out by the management. The matter is still under inquiry.

Mr. HARDIE: Will steps be taken to see that in other cases, which must be similar to this, a bore shall be kept going, whether there is water or not, and that that regulation shall be carried out? In old workings a bore should be kept going, because it may mean the saving of lives.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should put that question on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURAL LAND (RENTAL).

Mr. RILEY: 72.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what was the gross estimated rental of agricultural land in England and Wales for the years 1910, 1915, 1920, and 1922?

Major BARNSTON (Comptroller of the Household): I have been asked to reply. As the reply is somewhat long, and contains a number of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. RILEY: I have already received the answer, but it gives the rateable value only, while I have asked for the gross estimated rental. May I ask why it is that the gross estimated rental cannot be given, in view of the fact that a column in the rate book provides for it?

Major BARNSTON: I am not at all sure whether it can be given, but I will represent it to my right hon. Friend.

Following is the reply:

I am unable to state the estimated rental, but the rateable value of agricultural land in England and Wales, as defined by the Agricultural Rates Act,
1896, in the years mentioned in the question was as follows:



£


1910
23,732,277


1915
24,111,017


1920
24,736,662


1922
25,815,308


These figures are extracted from the Annual Local Taxation Returns of the Ministry of Health.

Note.—"Agricultural land," as defined by Section 9 of the Agricultural Rates Act, means any land used as arable, meadow or pasture land only, cottage gardens exceeding one quarter of an acre, market gardens, nursery grounds, orchards or allotments, but does not include land occupied together with a house as a park, gardens other than aforesaid, pleasure grounds or any land preserved mainly or exclusively for purposes of sport or recreation. It is exclusive of farmhouses and farm-buildings, tithe-rent charges and uncommuted tithes.

Oral Answers to Questions — PROBATION.

Mr. THORNTON: 73.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the national importance of the work carried out by probation officers, he will consider the desirability of inaugurating a pension scheme for these officers?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: This question has been engaging the consideration of the Advisory Committee on Probation, but, as the hon. Member is no doubt aware, it is a very difficult one, as probation officers are appointed by the Justices sitting in Petty Session, and most of them are only engaged for part of their time in probation work. Their position, therefore, is very different from that of Government officials or local officials who receive superannuation benefits.

Mr. THORNTON: 74.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that in the year 1921 the number of proved charges per 100,000 population in the five counties which made the greatest use of the probation system was under 540, whilst that in the five counties which used the system least was over 1,283; and, if so, what steps he is taking to stimulate the use of probation in those counties which have yet to realise its value?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Yes, Sir; my right hon. Friend has seen the figures referred to. He is well aware of the value of probation as a method of dealing with a large class of offenders, and the Home Office has lost no opportunity of urging Courts to use probation in all suitable cases, both by correspondence and by conferences with Magistrates. The Report of the Departmental Committee which was issued last year was sent with a circular letter to every Court in the country, and effect has been given to the recommendations of the Committee so far as they lie within the Home Secretary's authority—including the appointment of an Advisory Committee and the issue of an Annual Report. There is still much to be done to extend the use of probation, and the Home Office will certainly do its best to assist the development of the work.

Mr. F. GRAY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the magistrates cannot exercise the powers which they already possess, because there is no fund out of which payment can be made to institutions to which it is desired to send persons under the Probation Act?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: That is exactly the sort of question which is now being considered by the Home Office and the Advisory Committee.

Mr. GRAY: 75.
asked the Home Secretary what was the date of the appointment of the board appointed to advise the Home Office upon probation; and how many meetings it has held since that time?

Mr. LOCKER - LAMPSON: The Advisory Committee on Probation was appointed in June, 1922, and has held three meetings, namely, on the 18th July, 1922, the 22nd February and 31st May of this year.

Mr. GRAY: When are they likely to come to a decision?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: There are a great many rather difficult questions which they have to consider, and I should not like to say exactly when they will come to an ultimate decision, but they are making all the haste that is possible.

Mr. GRAY: 76.
also asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the fact that in 1922, whereas
at the London Sessions probation orders were made in respect of 356 persons out of a total of 1,270 who were tried, in all the other county, liberty, city, and borough Quarter Sessions, only 137 persons were placed upon probation out of a total 3,929 tried; if he will take steps to ascertain whether this practice as carried out in the London Courts is satisfactory; and, if so, whether he will bring the discrepancy to the notice of the other Quarter Sessions in the country?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Attention was drawn to this point in the recently issued Report of the Children's Branch of the Home Office, which contains a chapter on probation. My right hon. Friend is considering the desirability of sending a copy of this Report to Courts of Quarter Session as well as Petty Sessional Courts.

Mr. GRAY: 78.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the use of the probation system for adults lessens the expenditure upon prisons, and since this saving is a direct relief to central funds, he will recommend an Exchequer grant towards the expenses of probation?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have been asked to reply to this question. The matter is receiving careful consideration, but I need not remind my hon. Friend that the financial position is still difficult.

Mr. GRAY: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that this will be a saving to the National Exchequer, inasmuch as magistrates are compelled to send persons they consider suitable for probation orders to gaol?

Oral Answers to Questions — TURKEY.

BRITISH TRADE.

Sir E. STOCKTON: 1.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the conditions under which, as a result of the Lausanne Agreement, it will be possible to resume British trade with the Levant and Turkey?

Mr. McNEILL: I regret that I cannot make any statement on this subject until negotiations shall have been finally concluded at Lausanne.

BONDHOLDERS' RIGHTS.

Mr. AUBREY HERBERT: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the French Government have agreed to a compromise with the Turks on the question of what currency is to be the medium of payment of the French bondholders?

Mr. McNEILL: The French Government have made no special arrangement in regard to the rights of the French bondholders, nor have the Allied Governments incurred any responsibility or accepted any compromise in regard to the currency in which the bondholders of all nationalities are to be paid. The Allied delegates at Lausanne have, however, come to an agreement with the Turkish delegation on the basis of a reservation of the bondholders' rights, outside the Treaty.

Mr. HERBERT: Would it not have been better to do that long ago?

Mr. McNEILL: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRANCE (DEBT TO GREAT BRITAIN).

Mr. HERBERT: 4.
also asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the total amount of the French debt to Great Britain; and in what currency is it to be paid?

Major HENNESSY (Lord of the Treasury): The total amount of the French Government's debt to His Majesty's Government, as on the 31st March, 1923, was approximately £610,000,000, including accrued interest. The debt is payable in pounds sterling, with the exception of £8,400,000 (the equivalent of $41,000,000) which is payable in United States dollars.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: When do you expect to get any of it?

Oral Answers to Questions — OMNIBUS CANOPIES.

Mr. SNOWDEN: 77.
asked the Home Secretary if it is one of the duties of the traffic adviser of Scotland Yard to inspect omnibuses and other vehicles which it is desired shall ply for hire in the London area; if so, why did the traffic adviser refuse to inspect the All-
weather omnibus, after stating that it would not be satisfactory because the hood would darken the streets and the rain from the hood would annoy pedestrians; why, when pressed, did he say he could not inspect the omnibus without the permission of the Commissioner; why, when the inventor of the hood wrote to the Commissioner asking that the omnibus should be inspected, permission was refused; in view of this refusal, why did the Commissioner, at the request of the traffic combine, send a man specially to Willesden to inspect the omnibus without the knowledge of the inventor; and will instructions be given that a fair inspection of this omnibus should be made, and an opportunity given to the inventor to meet any objections which may be put forward by Scotland Yard against licensing the omnibus?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The duties of one of the traffic advisers include the inspection of public vehicles to see if they conform to the prescribed conditions, and can therefore be licensed. One of these conditions forbids the attachment of a canopy to the top deck of an omnibus, and he therefore declined to inspect the vehicle in question without the permission of his superiors, and permission was withheld because it was known that the condition mentioned above was not complied with. One of the Assistant Commissioners arranged to have a vehicle with a canopy inspected, not with a view to its being licensed, nor at the request of the traffic combine, but on general grounds because the subject was coming up before a Committee of the Ministry of Transport on which he represents the Commissioner. It was not known till the vehicle was seen that the canopy was of the "Allweather" type. Pending the report of the Committee in question, the Commissioner must regard the subject as sub-judice, and the Committee will doubtless consider any representations made by the inventor.

Viscount CURZON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the authorising of a canopy on omnibuses would be the greatest boon possible to those who have to use them?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I imagine that is one of the questions which may be considered by the Committee now sitting.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION (CROWN COLONIES).

Sir E. STOCKTON: 80.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the importance to the Lancashire trade of cheap railway freights in West Africa, and the objection to the existing heavy charges on the expensive lines built by the State, he will instruct the Departmental Committee, which is considering the whole matter, to inquire into the possibility of securing lines built more cheaply in future by private enterprise?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: It will certainly be one of the duties of the Committee to consider whether private enterprise could build railways cheaper than the West African Governments.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. J. RAMSAY MacDONALD: May I ask the Prime Minister what further business will be taken this week, and whether it is proposed to give an opportunity for a discussion on the Motion relating to military expenditure and disarmament standing on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Aberavon—[That this House deplores the enormous and growing expenditure on the naval and air forces and on other military preparations which is beginning once more a competition in armaments and is depleting resources that should be available for expenditure on education, public health, and similar social and human services, and, recalling the pledges of political leaders and the expectations of the nation that the great world War was to end war, urges the Government to take immediate steps to call an international conference to consider a programme of national safety based upon the policy that by disarmament alone can the peace and liberty of small and large nations alike be secured.]

The PRIME MINISTER: We hope to take the Lords Amendments to the Housing, etc. (No. 2) Bill and the Third Readings of the East India Loans, Expiring Laws Continuance and Public Works (Loans) Bills, after Eleven o'clock to-morrow (Thursday).
On Friday, we shall take the Report and Third Reading of the Universities of
Oxford and Cambridge Bill [Lords]] and the Second Reading of the Administration of Justice Bill [Lords] and, if time permit, of the Criminal Justice Bill [Lords].
With regard to the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Aberavon, we propose to put it down on Monday of next week.

Captain BENN: When does the right hon. Gentleman propose to resume the Debate on the Second Reading of the Education (Scotland) Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER: If, as seemed probable last night, it require long discussion, I am afraid that there will be some difficulty in making time.

Captain BENN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Solicitor-General for Scotland stated specifically last night that there would be the fullest and amplest discussion, and he gave no indication that the Bill would be postponed.

The PRIME MINISTER: I have not seen what my hon. and learned Friend said. I shall have to look into it.

Mr. HARDIE: There is no long discussion at all. There was only one hon. Member who spoke.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (No. 2) BILL,

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 198.]

EDUCATION (INSTITUTION CHILDREN) BILL.

Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee B.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow.

BILLS REPORTED.

Chelmsford Corporation Water Bill [Lords],

Croydon Corporation Bill [Lords],

Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill [Lords],

Swanage Gas and Electricity Bill [Lords],

West Bromwich Corporation Bill [Lords],

Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

Railway Fires Act (1905) Amendment Bill, with an Amendment.
Agricultural Holdings Acts (Amendment) Bill,
Housing, &c. (No. 2), Bill,
Mitcham Urban District Council Bill, with Amendments.

HOUSING, ETC. (No. 2) BILL.

Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 199.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[16TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee.

[Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICE AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1923–24.

CLASS II.

BOARD OF TRADE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £262,548, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Commitee of Privy Council for Trade and Subordinate Departments, including certain Services arising out of the War and Grants-in-Aid."—[Note: £770,000 has been voted on account.]

Mr. SHINWELL: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
I confess my disappointment at the absence of an explanatory statement from the right hon. Gentleman (The President of the Board of Trade). On a Vote such as this, he might very well have explained the comparative statistics in foreign trade which have been revealed by the trade accounts for the past few months, and have attempted to square the facts with some of his recent speeches on the expansion of our trade with foreign countries. The right hon. Gentleman has supervision over the Department which is responsible for many branches of economic and industrial activity. He is responsible, not merely for shipping and questions which arise out of shipping services, but for commercial treaties and overseas trade and a variety of other matters, all of which come in the category of trade affairs.
I desire to direct the attention of the Committee to the somewhat significant state of affairs which has arisen from our trade relationships during the past few months. I said a moment or two ago that the right hon. Gentleman might well have been expected to square his recent statements on the subject of the expansion of British trade with the facts as presented by his own statistical Reports. Some
weeks ago the right hon. Gentleman was addressing a meeting of the Belfast Chamber of Commerce, at which he delivered a speech sounding a note of optimism utterly beside the economic facts as presented in his own Reports. I cannot share the optimism of the right hon. Gentleman, and I think the Committee will agree with me that the figures contained in the Report will bear out my point of view. I would direct the attention of the Committee in the first place to the comparative statistics of foreign trade for May and June. The imports for May amounted to £89,478,000, but in June there was a slight drop, as revealed in the last official statistics, to £89,307,000. While there is a very slight decrease on the import side, we find a very startling decrease in regard to exports. In May the exports amounted to £71,554,000, whereas in June—when we might very properly have expected an increase for various reasons well known to the right hon. Gentleman, some of which are referred to in the Board of Trade Journal, which comments on the June figures as regards foreign trade—the exports only amounted in value to £62,883,000, or a drop of almost £9,000,000. When we come to re-exports, we find that, whereas in May they amounted to £11,773,000, they dropped in June to £10,954,932, or a drop of nearly £1,000,000.
These figures do not warrant any optimism as regards the expansion of British trade. On the contrary, there has been a decided drop in the past few months which warrants us in taking a gloomy and pessimistic view of the industrial situation. I observe that the right hon. Gentleman approves of my point of view, so perhaps he will be good enough to explain why he sounded such a strong note of optimism in the speeches delivered elsewhere. Perhaps it may be that speeches delivered at meetings of chambers of commerce do not require to be on all-fours with speeches delivered in this House, and perhaps they may be at variance in some degree with the facts.

Mr. PRINGLE: After-dinner speeches.

Mr. SHINWELL: I do not agree that all these speeches are in the nature of post-prandial orations. Now, I want to come to an even more significant fact in relation to our exports. One of the key industries, one of the basic industries, of
this country is the shipbuilding industry. To a very large extent we depend for our material prosperity on the prosperity of the shipbuilding industry. In the years before the War there was a very large amount of shipbuilding exported from this country to foreign countries. Britain was regarded, quite properly, as the chief shipbuilding nation, and there was hardly a country which did not purchase from this country ships of various kinds. Take that fact, which is beyond dispute, and put it beside the figures which have been recently submitted in regard to the exports in shipbuilding. The gross tonnage of exported ships in May, 1921, amounted to 20,104 tons. In the comparative month for 1914 the tonnage amounted to 36,000. It was not very high for that period, but it was very much higher than in May, 1921. In May, 1922, there had been a slight increase, for the gross figures then amounted to 24,946 tons. In May, 1923, instead of an expansion having taken place, there was a most significant, and one might say appalling, reduction in the export of ships, for the figures were 12,076 tons, almost half of what they were in May of the previous year. If you take the comparative figures for five months of the three years 1921–22–23, we find that in 1921 the exports amounted to 198,000 tons, in 1922 256,000 tons and this year 145,000 tons. In addition to that, the value of these shipbuilding exports has been considerably diminished. That is a very serious state of affairs and calls for some explanation from the right hon. Gentleman.
4.0 P.M.
I would like to draw attention to what I regard as a still more significant fact in regard to the prosperity of the British commerce. In addition to being one of the chief, if not the chief ship-building country of the world, we have always been regarded as the nation which provided the tonnage to carry the cargoes of the world. I find that in the comparative figures the tonnage of vessels clearing with cargoes from the United Kingdom amounted in May, so far as British vessels were concerned, to 3,814,000 tons. That was a considerable increase over 1921–22, but I would ask the Committee to note this very important fact, that, while there has been an increase in the amount of British tonnage clearing
with cargoes from the United Kingdom, there has been a still considerable increase in the amount of foreign tonnage clearing with cargo. Whereas in 1921 the amount of foreign tonnage clearing with cargoes from the United Kingdom amounted to 431,000 tons, in 1923 it had increased to 2,455,000 tons. That I regard as a very startling condition of things. It reveals this fact, that whereas British tonnage constituted the chief carrying tonnage of the world, our foreign competitors are now presenting a very formidable competition, and the result is that British tonnage is not by any means making headway. I have reduced these figures to a very simple illustration, and I submit that, whereas British tonnage clearing with cargoes from the United Kingdom has increased about three and a half times, foreign tonnage has increased six times. I do feel that the right hon. Gentleman, in view of his recent speeches and the general opinion of Members on his own side with regard to the improvement in British trade, is called upon to explain the figures that I have just submitted. I could submit a very large number of additional figures, but these are quite sufficient for my purpose. The right hon. Gentleman is responsible for a Department which deals with much more than the collection of statistics relating to shipping, commerce, and so on. It must pay due regard to commercial treaties and the tariffs which are in operation throughout the world, and keep a watchful and unceasingly vigilant eye on the tariffs of foreign countries. In this connection, I would direct the right hon. Gentleman's attention to page 61 of the Estimate. I refer to that part dealing with the Commercial Relations and Treaties Department. The Committee will agree with me when I say that it is of the utmost importance that we should pay strict attention to the commercial treaties which are now in operation and which are about to be agreed between foreign countries. I find that the amount spent on the Commercial Relations and Treaties Department only amounts to £10,480. That seems to be a very small amount, having regard to the important nature of the work of this Department.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Lloyd-Greame): That was last year.

Mr. SHINWELL: Yes, that was last year. It is true that there is to be an increase of something like £1,700 this year. I want to draw attention to this fact. While the right hon. Gentleman proposes that the staff of the Department should be increased by two, there is an increase of £577 by way of bonus in addition to salaries. I think that calls for some explanation. I am far from taking exception to the amount expended by the right hon. Gentleman in expanding his Department in every possible direction in the interests of British trade and commerce, but, if money is to be spent, it ought to be spent wisely, and this particular item calls for some explanation.
I would direct the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the recent agreements that have been reached between foreign countries. There is the agreement between Austria and Italy, the Franco-Belgian Trade Convention, and, in particular, the recent Russian-Denmark Convention, a convention which is significant in view of the attitude of the Treasury Bench in relation to resuming diplomatic and trade relations with Russia. If Denmark can conclude a trade agreement of a reciprocal nature with Russia, which is to the advantage of both countries, then it is about time that the right hon. Gentleman, realising the importance of treaties from the point of view of his own Department and of the nation, brought his influence to bear on his colleagues to restore trading relations with Russia. The fact of the matter is that on the Continent agreements are being signed almost daily between the various countries, and Russia is entering with the most complete spirit into agreements of this kind. It is up to this country to follow the lead which has been given in the interests of the restoration of British trade and commerce.
I want to leave that part of my subject and to turn to a matter which affects the right hon. Gentleman's Department and which arises out of very many complaints which have been submitted to him on behalf of seamen and the dependants of seamen in connection with the operations of the Reparation Commission. During the War there was a very strong feeling on behalf of the seamen of the country. They had rendered invaluable
service to the nation, and, in consequence of what they had done, many promises have been made.

Mr. PRINGLE: Ton for ton!

Mr. SHINWELL: Naturally, the seamen of the country expect the Government to redeem the promises which were then made. Perhaps it is unwise to expect the Government to redeem promises, having regard to the lack of redemption in other matters, but the seamen are trusting, and perhaps simple in their faith, and they still expect the Government to do what they originally intended, or, at all events, promised. As a result of representations which were made to the Government, the Prime Minister of the day, the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), made certain promises to the organisations which met him and which represented the seamen of the country.

Mr. PRINGLE: Ton for ton!

Mr. SHINWELL: That observation has so often been made by the hon. Member that by this time I am quite familiar with it. I must confess that it seems somewhat irrelevant at the moment.

Mr. PRINGLE: It was not my policy.

Mr. SHINWELL: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs did undoubtedly make definite promises of a financial character to the seamen's organisations, and, as a result, the Foreign Office took the matter up and communicated with the Seamen's Union requesting them to have forms printed which the men might fill up and send to the Foreign Office for their consideration. About a year later, in 1920, the matter was transferred from the Foreign Office to the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade then sent to the men a form and asked them to fill it up without regard to the forms which were originally filled up on the instructions of the Foreign Office. It is not generally known that originally the forms were sent out on the instructions of the Foreign Office. It is generally assumed that the Board of Trade were responsible for this work from the beginning, but that is not so. The Board of Trade, however, took the matter up, and the Reparation Commission was instructed to proceed. A very large number of claims were sent in, but it so happens that a considerable number of
the men, believing that the original forms were quite sufficient for the purpose, either refused to fill up the forms sent out by the Reparation Department, or, when they were pressed to fill up those forms and they sent them to the Department, they found that because of some slight discrepancy between the original form coming from the Foreign Office and the form sent to the Board of Trade their claims were turned down. I want to direct the right hon. Gentleman's attention to some very significant facts in relation to this Reparation question, and, in particular, to statements made by the Noble Lord who sits beside him (Viscount Wolmer). I asked the Noble Lord a question on the 15th February with regard to the number of Reparation claims which had been sent in, and this is what he said, among other things:
The total number of seamen and their dependants who have lodged claims with the Reparation Claims Department is 24,750."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1923; col. 314, Vol. 160.]
I presume he regards that as accurate, or, at all events, he did so at the time, but I ventured to ask him a question last week, much on the same lines, and he then said:
The number of officers and seamen of the mercantile marine, including fishermen, and of their dependants or relatives who have lodged claims with the Reparation Claims Department is 22,589."—[[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th July, 1923; col. 1393, Vol. 166.]
There is some discrepancy, because on 15th February the Noble Lord said the number was 24,000, and last week he said it was 22,000. Perhaps it may be susceptible of explanation, because I know that hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench can explain almost anything. The Reparation Commission proceeded with its work, and eventually decided—apparently without the authority of Parliament, because so far as I know there has been no discussion in the House with regard to the matter—that they would not deal with claims submitted after December, 1922. There are two points of view which might be submitted on behalf of the men. First of all, the fact that they had submitted originally a claim to the Foreign Office through the medium of their organisation was in their opinion quite sufficient; and, secondly, there was a controversy proceeding in the
country as to whether any payments would be received by way of reparation from Germany. Perhaps there was a strong justification for that point of view. Consequently, many of the men, reading of the controversy in the Press and listening to the speeches made, decided that it was not worth their while to present claims at all. In addition, there is the fact, well known to anyone having knowledge of seafaring affairs, that many seamen frequently change their addresses. When I was in touch with the seamen's organisation in Glasgow, it used to be a joke with us that a seaman often had an address on one side of the street in the morning and on another side in the afternoon, and probably he changed his address again in the evening. Seamen shift from port to port, and are completely out of touch with the edicts or instructions issued by Government Departments. Therefore, the men are not to blame in any degree for not having submitted claims before the time stipulated by the Commission. In reply to a question which I put the other day, the Noble Lord said that 15,000 belated claims were under consideration. Perhaps I had better give his exact words. He said:
The number of applicants who have communicated with the Department for the first time since 30th December, 1922, is about 15,000, and the majority of these applicants are members of the mercantile marine."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th July, 1923; col. 1393, Vol. 166.]
I plead with the right hon. Gentleman and the Noble Lord to give more sympathetic consideration to what are described as belated claims than has hitherto been done. I am aware of the difficulties of the Commission, and I am aware that perhaps it would be impossible to extend the period much further, but there have been many questions asked in the House and some speeches made on this very question, with the result that seamen have learned much more about the operations of the Reparation Commission in the last 12 months than they knew before. Perhaps I ought to be quite fair and say that as a result of some seamen having been paid their claims other seamen have heard of it and are now pressing theirs. I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to turn down any legitimate and valid claims submitted by any seaman who has suffered in any degree through the
War. After all, men were torpedoed sometimes six and even ten times and lost all their effects. All that they received as a maximum—and that was only after much agitation by the Seamen's Organisation—was £7 10s., and that did not in any way compensate them for the loss of their clothes. Having regard to the suffering which they endured and the services which they rendered, I think the seamen and their dependants are entitled to more consideration from the right hon. Gentleman and his Department. I hope this appeal will not be made in vain. I want now to refer to another matter contained in the Estimates on page 80 referring to Law Charges, Shipping Liquidation Commission.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is a subject which ought to come under Vote 7.

Mr. SHINWELL: Very well, I am in your hands.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: May I point out that in previous years the Chairman has allowed a little wider discussion on the general Vote in order to economise the time of the Committee. I suggest that if you, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, found it possible to adopt that policy now, it would lead to economy of time and would assist the Debate.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am rather in the hands of precedent in this matter, and it has been distinctly ruled that when we are considering a particular Vote only those matters raised in that Vote should be discussed. On the main Vote a very general discussion can take place upon any subject for which the Board of Trade is responsible, but if there be a separate Vote dealing with a particular question, then the discussion of that question should take place on that Vote.

Mr. GRAHAM: The subject which my hon. Friend (Mr. Shinwell) proposes to discuss comes very closely upon what has been already discussed, and upon what is the rule on the general Vote. I hope that you will be able to meet us and allow a little greater freedom of discussion. If the Debate be limited to a separate Vote, the subject which my hon. Friend wishes to discuss may not be reached at all.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: It is true that there is a separate Vote and a main Vote. There is the Vote for the Mercantile Marine and several other Votes, like the Shipping Liquidation Commission and Special Services. Subject to your ruling, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, I am very anxious to meet the convenience of hon. Members and allow subjects to be referred to in respect of my salary as President of the Board of Trade, seeing that all these matters come under my jurisdiction. I do not want to rely upon technicalities, and one thing being allowed to come up rather than another.

Mr. PRINGLE: May I submit to you, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, that it is in accordance with practice that, when the salary of the Secretary of State or any Department is under discussion, it is possible to deal in the Debate with any matter for which he is responsible. Such a procedure has been sanctioned by the Chair in past years, and, in these circumstances, I submit that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Shinwell) is entitled to raise the question which he now desires to raise.

Captain Viscount CURZON: The subjects dealt with under the Board of Trade are so vast and cover such an enormous field that, if we are compelled to confine ourselves to one particular Vote, we shall find it difficult to raise many of the problems which we now want to discuss.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Naturally I am desirous of considering the convenience of hon. Members, but I think the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) will find that it is not the practice of this House to allow questions for which there is a separate Vote. There is no doubt that a reference can be made to a particular subject, but not a detailed discussion upon questions in regard to which there is a separate Vote.

Viscount CURZON: To morrow we are going to discuss the Navy Estimates on the salary of the First Lord of the Admiralty, and we are going to discuss the question of Singapore, in regard to which there is a direct Vote.

Mr. PRINGLE: I would like to call attention to precedents of pre-War days. In 1914, on the Votes for the salaries of the Secretary for Scotland and the
First Lord of the Admiralty, there were occasions on which questions arising on a particular Vote were discussed on those particular salaries, although the special Vote under which the money was voted was not before the House at the time.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Knowing that hon. Members on all sides wanted to raise a number of points of detail, I carefully arranged to put down all the relevant Votes which come under the jurisdiction of the Board of Trade. If it would be possible without taking a Vote on any one of them to have a rather wider discussion at the outset, it would suit the convenience of everybody very much. As the Vote for the salary of the President of the Board of Trade can be challenged on every one of these Votes, would it not be possible to have the discussion desired upon that Vote?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I took the trouble to find out what was the practice of the House on this subject when the Home Office Vote was discussed last week, and it was that discussion could not be raised on the main Vote on a question for which there was a separate Vote.

Mr. SHINWELL: On the Mercantile Marine Vote there is no reference to the Shipping Liquidation Commission.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That comes on Vote 7.

Mr. SHINWELL: Do I understand that you are prepared to permit a discussion of a general character on this Vote?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Salaries and expenses in connection with the Shipping Liquidation Commission cannot be discussed on this Vote.

Mr. SHINWELL: That places us in a position of great difficulty, because we are anxious to deal with specific points, and, if we are precluded on the general Vote, there will be no opportunity of raising those points at all. The right hon. Gentleman's Department has so many varied branches that one feels it essential to deal with them en bloc. The shipping liquidation question is distinct from the general activities of the Board of Trade, and perhaps we might be allowed now to have a discussion of a general character.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Is it possible now to draw a distinction that whereas matters of details, as regards whether too much money was spent on the salary of a particular accountant and so on, are matters which would have to be discussed on the Vote in which they are put down, the broad policy pursued by the Board of Trade might be discussed on the President's salary and not the detailed questions of administration which are appropriate to a particular Vote? I think there is a distinction of that kind.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Speaking from recollection, I think it was suggested that reference could be made generally on the Vote for the Home Office to subjects administered by the Home Office, for which there was a separate Vote.

Mr. PETO: Do I understand that this difficulty arises from the fact that a detailed Vote has been put down? My recollection is that before the War, on the salary of the President of the Board of Trade, we were able to discuss every question dealt with by the Department on that Vote. Have we not placed ourselves in a difficulty by putting down too many Votes?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is a different point altogether.

Mr. HARDIE: It has already been pointed out to me that I should be able to raise a discussion on the subject of fuel, but under your ruling that is going to be ruled out.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: As far as I can understand the hon. Member, the subject he wishes to raise can be discussed on this Vote.

Mr. SHINWELL: It was my intention merely to deal with the policy of the Department, and I was going to make a reference to the charges of the Shipping Liquidation Commission to preface my observations. I think, in pursuing that line, it is quite consistent with the ruling that you have just given. I want to draw attention to the general transactions, and the policy of the Shipping Liquidation Department in regard to the disposal of ex-enemy vessels. As is well known, arising from the Inter-Allied Agreement a very large number of vessels were
handed over to the United Kingdom by ex-enemy countries, and it was decided by the late Government to dispose of those vessels mainly to British shipowners under the direction of Lord Inchcape, and arrangements were made with that end in view.
I find on examining these transactions that 373 ex-enemy vessels were thus disposed of, and the net proceeds amounted to £19,459,000. In the early part of the Session I put certain questions to the President of the Board of Trade and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as a result of which I ascertained that of the £19,000,000, being the net proceeds as stated in the Report of the Shipping Liquidation Department, only £16,000,000 had actually been paid. I assumed, as undoubtedly other hon. Members assumed, that £16,000,000 had actually been handed over to the Treasury. Judge of my astonishment when I realised, after putting another question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 10th May last, that of the gross proceeds of £19,000,000 odd, only £10,950,000 had actually found its way into the Treasury.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. James Hope): I am afraid that these details must be dealt with under the separate Vote which is on the Paper. The third Vote clearly deals with the subject.

Mr. SHINWELL: These figures have been extracted from the Report of the Liquidation Commission in order to show to the Committee that the President of the Board of Trade is responsible for what occurred. Obviously, I cannot criticise the right hon. Gentleman or his administration unless I submit figures in support of my criticism. I was about to read the figures and to put one or two questions to the right hon. Gentleman arising out of the figures. The Committee is surely entitled to know what are the financial transactions of the Board of Trade, and to learn from the right hon. Gentleman from time to time whether the Government in disposing of these vessels was disposing of them at reasonable prices.

The CHAIRMAN: I see the position clearly now. This is an exact parallel to what happened the other day on the Home Office Vote. There was a Vote for the salary of the Secretary of State, a Vote for the Metropolitan Police, and a
Vote for Prisons. The Home Secretary is responsible to this House for all those Departments, but it was necessary, in acordance with precedent, to take separate Votes. It would be quite in order for the hon. Gentleman to raise the matter to which he has referred on the third Vote to be taken to-day, just as it was in order to raise questions relating to police and prisons on the separate Votes of the Home Office.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is it in order to ascertain, by way of question to the right hon. Gentleman, why it is that the amount stated as the net proceeds has not found its way to the Treasury? May I, in the course of Debate, put such a question to the right hon. Gentleman?

The CHAIRMAN: Certainly, but not on this Vote. The question can be put on the Vote for Shipping Liquidation, which will come on in due course this evening.

Mr. SHINWELL: Does it not arise on the question of the salary of the President of the Board of Trade? He receives a salary for carrying out certain administrative duties. If he is not carrying them out efficiently, are we not entitled to criticise him?

The CHAIRMAN: The point raised is exactly parallel to that raised on the Home Office Vote. The Home Secretary is responsible for the Metropolitan Police and for the proper carrying on of prisons, although there are separate Prison Commissioners. The hon. Member must raise his particular question on the separate and distinct Vote which deals with the matter.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I want to comment on a matter which is within the cognisance of the President of the Board of Trade, and, if I strain the rules of order, no doubt the Chair will guide me, as there is some confusion owing to the number of Votes put down to-day. I suppose that at present the Department of the Board of Trade is the most important of the Government Departments. When I put one or two questions to the Minister, I hope he will not think that I am in any way attacking him or his Department. I hope he will remember that he and I were back benchers together, and that he has my sympathy for a new Minister struggling with a great Department in a very difficult time. Nevertheless,
there are one or two questions that I am compelled to raise. The first relates to the working of the dyes policy. We were promised all sorts of things in the last Parliament when the Dyestuffs Bill was introduced, and various pledges were given to the trade which have not been implemented. I have very high authority for that statement. I shall quote from a speech of the chairman of the British Cotton and Wool Dyers' Association, as reported in the "Times" on 17th May last. I quote him because he knows much more about this question than I can know, and because his words deserve some comment from the President of the Board of Trade. He was referring to the hindrances that are put in the way of our export trade by the working of the dyes policy of the Government.
Hon. Members who were not in the last Parliament will be aware that the Government, on the plea of preparing for the next war, kept out foreign dyes as much as they could from this country and tried to foist on the consumers of dyes inferior products at a very much enhanced price in order that they might have a supply of poisons for use by our aeroplanes in the next war. We can leave the next war to take care of itself, but we cannot leave British trade at the present moment to defend itself. British trade is in a very parlous state indeed. We have terrible figures of unemployment, as given to me in answer to a question put to the Minister of Labour to-day. That is the immediate question for our consideration. If another war comes we will manage as we did in the last war. Meanwhile, if this country is going bankrupt, we shall be ruined without any defeat by a foreign enemy. These are the words of the President of the British Cotton and Wool Dyers' Association:
It should not be forgotten that towards the end of 1920, when the Dyestuffs Importation Bill was being introduced, the majority of the colour users, through the Colour Users' Association, expressed approval of the Act,"—
As a matter of fact, I understand that the calico printers were very much against it, but the majority of the colour users were bamboozled by the Government. The quotation goes on:
but assent was given on the distinct understanding that the textile and other
colour-using industries should not be placed in an unduly disadvantageous competitive competition. Unfortunately, this pledge which the Government made has not been kept"—
This is not the statement of a Member sitting on the Opposition side of the House—
and British colour users have to pay far higher prices for dyestuffs than those charged to competitors abroad. The consequence is that the textile industries of this country are being penalised, resulting in loss of business. It is well known that British firms are sending goods to Switzerland, Belgium and Holland to be dyed, an account of the much lower prices of dyestuffs ruling in those countries. We understand that the Licensing Committee has recently agreed to grant licences (with certain reservations) for dyestuffs, where the British equivalent was more than three times the pre-War price, strength and quality, of course, being taken into consideration.

Viscount CURZON: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman give the name of the gentleman he is quoting?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Certainly, it is Mr. Hoegger, and I am quoting from a speech at the Chartered Accountants' Hall, Manchester, on 17th May last, as reported in the "Times." Where the British user has to pay more than three times the pre-War price, he is given a licence to import, but only after very considerable delay. The quotation goes on:
In theory this sounds very well, and if carried out in practice it would give much satisfaction. Unfortunately, our experience is that it is not carried out. We have had many applications refused where the British makers' price was far above three times the German pre-War price, and the reasons given for refusal were by no means satisfactory. It would appear that on the whole applications for licences have been recently dealt with more expeditiously than formerly. This is largely due to the assistance of a joint committee of technical experts appointed by the makers and the Colour Users' Association.
Therefore, things are a little better, but, nevertheless, we are being penalised. The President of the Board of Trade, and no doubt others, will say, "Oh, but the colours are not very important. The actual cost of the dyeing of goods is perhaps only one thirty-second part of the whole." They put us off in that way. Let me quote a speech by Sir William
Barton on this subject in the last Parliament. He said:
The deciding factor in a cotton contract may be only one-thirty-second of a penny per yard.
He said later:
The finishing trades are carried on as units of industry and the fraction to them becomes 20 to 30 per cent. or more.
He also pointed out how the price of colours was sometimes increased by from 400 to 800 per cent. That disposes of the contention that the cost of the dyes is quite negligible, and that the loss of orders by our merchants may not be traced to the dyes policy of the Government. Last night we had an impassioned oration from the President of the Board of Trade, backed up by the Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon), about aliens coming here and taking work from poor British working men. We are losing work for the same poor British working men by this ridiculous and futile policy with regard to dyes. We are losing orders, and the loss is directly traceable to this ridiculous, war-born policy, which was very largely a failure under the Coalition Government and has been continued by the present Government. We are entitled to some statement from the President of the Board of Trade as to the Government's policy with regard to dyes, and as to how the Government propose to help our merchants and manufacturers a little more, and to think less of the means of manufacturing chemicals for poisoning the civilians of a possible enemy in a possible future war. Let us come down to the realities of the present. Unemployment of great magnitude is now in its third year. It is time that we gave up all this sentiment and the relics of the War period and remembered to help British trade and commerce a little.
I wish to raise another matter, and I hope that I shall be in order. The matter very nearly concerns the President of the Board of Trade. It is the question of the compensation of seamen who were injured in the late War by enemy submarine action and the compensation of widows whose husbands were killed by enemy submarines. I believe it is a fact that soon after the Armistice a deputation, including no less a person than Mr. Havelock Wilson, waited on the late Prime Minister and extracted from him a
solemn pledge that the payment to these merchant seamen injured by enemy action should have first claim on the moneys received from Germany in Reparations. That pledge has not been kept. I tried to find the reference to that pledge, but I think I am right in saying it is generally agreed to have been given.

The CHAIRMAN: That will come under the next Vote—Mercantile Marine Services.

Mr. SHINWELL: On a point of Order. Are you aware, Sir, that I dealt in my speech with that subject fully so far as I was capable of dealing with it fully, and that your predecessor in the Chair took no exception to it.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY of the BOARD of TRADE (Viscount Wolmer): I think it comes under the Reparation Claims Department on the Board of Trade Vote.

The CHAIRMAN: Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions are referred to in Vote 11.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: That is a different thing.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: That is a different matter. I am not dealing with the Merchant Seamen's Fund Pension. This pledge has not been kept, but a paltry £5,000,000 was set aside for the compensation of these sufferers, and a notice was apparently put in certain organs of the Press to the effect that people who had claims should put in their claims to this Department. I, myself, did not know of this notice, and it is not surprising that other people were in exactly the same position, and that many persons who I am afraid do not read the papers—they are very often too poor to afford them—did not know of this notice to put in their claims. The result is they are being penalised to-day and are not receiving this compensation to which they are justly entitled. I make no complaint against the Department administering this Fund. They have to carry out their instructions. These belated claims—some of them from men who were abroad in ships—are simply being put aside for consideration. A certain proportion of money has been paid to some of the sufferers, but many people in dire distress to-day who have perfectly good claims on account of injuries, loss of gear, or loss of the breadwinner, cannot get the
money. What I suggest to the Government is that they should take counsel with the Treasury, and consider some further amount being put to this Reparation account. It is no good the Government saying, "We are not getting money from Germany." They have had great payments from Germany; payments in ships, and payments in money. The whole cost of the Army of Occupation has, I understand, now been met. Under those circumstances, I must ask them to stick to the pledge given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). It was promised that these men should have the first, claim on reparation payments, and something has got to be done.
I wish to raise only one other topic. I think I am in order in raising the policy of the administration of the Overseas Trade (Credits and Insurance) Act. The Act admits of guarantees by the Treasury for British Merchants to trade with certain countries, the Border States of Russia and Poland, Austria, and so on. Some £4,500,000 has been guaranteed this year, and I want to ask the Government whether it is not time that they extended the operations of this Act to Russia. I am not going to be frightened off by the attack made on Russia at Question Time by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden). We have to put sentiment on one side. We have to look for markets for our traders and merchants wherever we can find them. I ask the Government to consider their policy on this question now as to whether they should not extend the working of this Act to Russia. We have just come through a diplomatic crisis with that country. We are hoping for better relations. We have got a good deal of satisfaction in regard to certain claims made to the Russian Government. This Act is for the benefit of our merchants. The money is voted for our own people and not for anybody else. I do not think that there is any valid reason, if this Act can be extended to ex-enemy countries like Austria and new States like Poland, why it should not be extended to that country. It is going to benefit our own people. At the present moment, with all this terrible unemployment in the country and bad trade and a renewed set-back to trade, I do not see any reason
why the Act should not be extended. In the last Parliament I raised this matter on several occasions, and so did many other Members, and we never had a satisfactory answer, except the usual sentimental balderdash which we get from the other side of the House when that great country of Russia is mentioned.
I am approaching this from the business point of view. If our people can do extra trade in that country, why in the name of goodness are the provisions of the Act not extended to that country? The Government go on with the 1919–1920 propaganda with regard to that country. They permit our people to whistle for work, our mills and factories to be idle, and our skilled workpeople to become demoralised and unused to work, and lose the aptitude for work. As the Prime Minister said last week in his statement on the European situation, the effect of unemployment is cumulative. The Government, I state, are deliberately increasing or continuing unemployment by not affording these trade facilities to people who wish to trade with Russia. I think it, is high time that they reconsidered their policy and that the Act was extended. Trade is again languishing. We have had a set-back. The promised boom at the beginning of the year has not been continued. It is time the President of the Board of Trade and his colleagues in the Government threw aside sentiments, hatreds, suspicions, and prejudices and tried to help people who wish to do honest trade in any market open to us. We cannot afford the luxuries of these sentimental blockades of potential customers. I wait with pleasure and anticipation—I hope joyful anticipation—the reply of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. PETO: On a point of Order. I wish to point out that there are two questions. There is the question of the Reparation Claims Commission with which two Members have dealt. There is also the question of War Risks, under which compensation is paid to injured seamen, as soldiers would be paid under the Pensions Department. I understand that neither of those things are included in the Vote for the mercantile marine, and that questions in regard to them if not raised on the President's salary cannot be raised at all. Therefore, I wish to ask, as I want to raise certain questions connected with
the mercantile marine, and to deal with the question of the belated claims, and also with the question of compensation to injured seamen under the War Risks scheme, whether under your ruling it is necessary that I should deal with those three questions on this Vote, and try to catch your eye on the general question relating to the mercantile marine.

The CHAIRMAN: The general rule is that if a sum of money is taken for any purpose that purpose can be discussed. Under this Vote, for the Board of Trade generally, there is an item for the Reparation Claims Department, and also an item for the Department of Overseas Trade. If the hon. Member can find an item dealing with the subjects that he wishes to bring up, it will be in order. I fancy, in regard to one of them, that he will have to raise it on the next Vote As to War Risks, I think that is included in a different Vote altogether. I will make certain on that point, and in the meantime someone else will catch my eye.

5.0 P.M.

Mr. CLAYTON: It is extremely satisfactory to me that the President of the Board of Trade is so interested in the development of the industries of this country. If in the past the Board of Trade had taken the same interest in manufacture of dyes we should never have lost that industry in this country. We started it here, and we had the raw materials and the knowledge, but at that time there were a great many restrictions put upon the industry by the then Board of Trade, and it drifted away and went to Germany, where they gained the advantages that we could not obtain in this country. We have all the raw materials for the dye industry. Prior to the War a great deal of that raw material was sent to Germany, worked up there with their labour and consuming their raw materials, coal, etc., and it was returned to this country in the form of dyes and used by us. There is no reason why those dyes cannot be made here. I am pleased to say, from what I know of the industry, that enormous progress has already been made. Great satisfaction has been given to the dye users. There may have been some who had some difficulties in obtaining the dyes they wanted, but generally there has been great satisfaction. They agree that very great progress has been made, and I feel sure that under the help and
guidance of the present Board of Trade we shall get established in this country a dye industry that can hold its own with any other dye makers. Apart from the fact that we have all the raw materials to make the dyes in this country, the dye industry requires a very great deal of labour, not only in actually making the dyes, but in preparing the raw materials for those dyes. I want that labour to be found in this country and not in Germany. We have also to consider the safety of the textile trade in this country. We must have an adequate supply of dyes on which we can rely as being made in this country. There are times, such as the present time on the Ruhr, when it is impossible to get dyes. Other occasions might easily occur when it will be impossible to get foreign dyes, and we must maintain our textile trade. I feel that it is very important for that reason also that we should have a dye industry here. During the War we had to manufacture a large number of chemicals which are really intermediates in the dye industry. We required those chemicals for explosives. It is quite true that before the War in Germany, when they had manœuvres, Lord Moulton told me that the dye manufacturing works were turned on to make the materials for explosives. They had duplicate plants, one for making the dyes and the other for making the explosives, and a part of the manœuvres was the turning over of the dye works into explosive works to show that they were prepared in case of emergency. I do not say that we need do that, but if we have the dye industry established in this country, we have the potential plant for making what we require in a case of emergency. I think that is a matter of considerable importance to this country. Further than that, the dye industry is a most valuable school for chemists. A very large number of chemists are required, both in the manufacture of the intermediates and of the dyes, and as a school for chemists, it is of great value. These chemists are used in every other industry, and we could draw on the dye industry for these men when required. If we have no such school, we fall behind in very many of our industries. I maintain that the chief objections to this subsidy to the dye industry come from the merchants who supply the German dyes. I do not believe that the objections
really emanate from the users but from these traders in foreign dyes. I think our British interests are vastly more important than the interests of these dealers in German dyes.

Mr. MIDDLETON: I cannot pretend to follow the last hon. Member in all he says regarding the dye industry, because he is a recognised expert, but I was speculating in my mind as to how he was relating his views to the dyes arrangement which was come to under the Treaty of Versailles and which is set aside for reparations. I notice that the President of the Board of Trade on the 10th of April said:
It is estimated that the amount to be credited to the German Reparation Account to date in respect of dyes and dyestuffs is approximately £950,000. The amount realised from sales is approximately £1,043,000. The realisable value of stock in hand is estimated at £110,000 and the amount of profit realised at the 31st March, 1922, was £137,000.
I think the Committee will be glad to know precisely how that account stands now and what the position actually is. A quotation was read by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) from the report of one of the large dye firms. I have in my hand an extract from the report of the meeting of the British Dyestuffs Corporation, held on 10th July this year, showing that, owing to the French occupation, there is a distinct interference with the possibility of German dyes being of large value to us in the way of reparations. The report says:
A very considerable disturbance of the German dyestuffs industry has been caused by the French occupation. While some works have been able to maintain output, others are entirely closed, and it is estimated that the German production has already been reduced by nearly 50 per cent. The difficulties are increased and the position has become more confused by the action of France and Belgium in seizing large stocks of dyestuffs which have been conveyed to French and Belgian territory. The indiscriminate distribution of these dyestuffs might materially affect the interests of your Corporation and strong representations, which are not being disregarded, have been made to the Government on the difficult and dangerous situation.
In view of the applause which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade gave to the speech of the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr Clayton),
I think it is desirable that he should explain to the Committee how this matter stands. I also want to refer to another item which appears on page 83 of the Estimates. It is a question with which I think the Committee is familiar, that of the Australian zinc concentrates contract. My own division, the capital of the county, which is affected, has a general interest although not a detailed interest in this matter, and I think my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith Collison) will probably desire to say something about this question as affecting his own constituency. I represent the capital of the particular county which is affected. I understand that this extraordinary contract, which has ruined the lead and zinc mining industry of this country, was entered into in 1918, and it was to run for 13 years. That means that not until 1930 is there any hope for the zinc and lead mining industry of this country, and I think that is a pretty serious situation which needs the careful attention, not only of the Government, but of this Committee. The position in which the Government found themselves at the outbreak of the War was that the zinc concentrates produced by Australia in large quantities were controlled by the Germans, and an arrangement was naturally entered into to divert these supplies to this country for war purposes. But in 1918 the mining interests in Australia said to our Government, "What are you to do about our post-War markets?" and I understand that the Lloyd George of Australia, Mr. Hughes, was able to induce the Governmnt of the day to enter into a contract which has meant a very great deal to the people of Australia, but which has brought a great deal of destruction and ruin to the industry of this country. In view of the fact that it seems that in the ordinary way, we cannot get out of this difficulty until 1930, it is high time that the Government gave some attention to this problem with a view to seeing whether even at this time there is not some chance of coming to a better arrangement with the Government of Australia.
There are one or two ways in which I think it could be done. There is the question of cutting one's losses after a bad business deal is made, and I think the question should be considered whether it is not possible to dispose of this stuff in Australia itself and put it on the open market. It might be the case that some
of the stuff would find its way to Germany and that German manufacturers would use it in competition with British manufacturers, but, if that were the case, it would have another side to it, because it would enable Germany to pay. I understand the Government want Germany to pay, but they do not want Germany to have raw materials or facilities for manufacturing which would enable them to pay. There was another proposal which I think should receive consideration. If it be necessary in the interests of the Empire so heavily to subsidise the Australian mining industry, surely it would be possible to do the same for the relatively very small number of people affected in this country. It may be that because the interests here are so small they have been overlooked. Probably in the county of which I am thinking the number of people directly affected may be only a few hundreds, and in the country as a whole they may be only a few thousands, but surely they are not to be allowed to be knocked out altogether because their numbers are small. It seems to me that it is a sort of Imperialism run riot which shows such concern for the interests of our Australian brothers and cousins, but ignores the claims and interests of people in our own country. I think the time has come when the Government should give an assurance that something will be done to terminate a contract which bears so heavily upon our people at home. It is easy to say that the Coalition Government made this contract, and it would be easy for the Coalition people to say that it was due to the Paris Resolutions, and that therefore the responsibility lies on the Leaders of the Liberal party. But, instead of indulging in these recriminations, the people who are suffering at home would be very glad if the Government would do something to remedy things for the future.
I do not profess to have a remedy in my pocket, but I think the matter should receive the full attention of the Government, and I think the Government should give us very much more information than they have given us in these Estimates. You can, by taking the receipts and expenditure, find the cash difference between the two, representing something like £1,000,000 loss, but that presentation of accounts is not satisfactory to people who want to know precisely how we stand,
and what the stocks in the country are. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade will satisfy us with an explanation, and not only give us the details, but give us an assurance that the Government are alive to the serious situation which exists in the lead and zinc mining industry of this country, and that they will do their best to remedy it. As I have said, the numbers concerned are few, but they are a very deserving class of working people. Every zinc mine in the country, and most lead mines, have been absolutely closed on account of this contract. In the part of the country of which I am speaking there is no other work for the people, and the result is that, in order to subsidise the miners of Australia, we are sending several thousands of people in this country to the unemployment dole. That is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. I hope we shall get an assurance that this Government, as distinct from the last Government, are alive to this question and are doing everything that they can to find a solution for what I regard as a very serious problem.

Mr. COLLISON: I very gladly associate myself with the remarks which have been made by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Middleton). As the representative of one of the constituencies in Cumberland, I know something of the hardships of the people engaged in the industry to which he has referred. I want to draw the attention of the Committee to an item where they are asking for £2,120,000 in order to pay for deliveries of these zinc concentrates from Australia. We heard the other night a great deal about Socialism and the nationalisation of industries. There was a good deal of misgiving on the part of hon. Members opposite, and I am not surprised, for some of the Government interference has been of a most unfortunate character. The interference on the part of the late Government in this zinc industry has undoubtedly brought a good deal of disastrous result and loss to this industry, not only in England, but in Scotland and in Wales. May I refresh the memories of hon. Members with the contract that was made in 1917? There was an agreement come to in that year, as regards concentrates and spelter, with the Zinc Producers Proprietary Association, Limited, in Australia, and this agreement operates until 30th June,
1930, and is divided into three periods. The first is from 1st January, 1918, to 30th June, 1921; the second is from 1st July, 1921, to 30th June, 1925, and the third is from 1st July, 1925, to 30th June, 1930. The annual quantity of concentrates the Government may be required to take is fixed in the agreement at 250,000 tons per annum in the first period, and 300,000 tons per annum in the second and third periods. The prices are fixed for the first two periods, and a formula is laid down for regulating prices in the third period. There is also an agreement giving the Association the right to put 45,000 tons of spelter annually with the Government at ruling prices.
We have not only in this country to take 300,000 tons of concentrates from Australia, but we have to take it at a price of £4 per ton, and the freightage from Australia to this country is £4per ton, so that hon. Members will realise the indebtedness of this country in regard to this contract. What is the result? Prior to this contract being made, we had in this country a number of these zinc mines, flourishing, paying good wages, employing many people, industries that had been in existence for many years, some of them for hundreds of years, but immediately this contract was made every zinc industry in this country was closed, and every man was thrown out of employment. While these mines at the present time are closed, the same industry in Australia is flourishing, and big dividends are being paid, because it is being subsidised by the British Government. The Government have replied to criticisms by saying that if there had been no contract at all it would not be possible, at the present time of industrial depression, for these mines to be able to sell their products. I think it ill becomes the Government to make a remark of that kind, that it is utterly impossible for these mine owners to dispose of their products, when the purchasers know that there are 300,000 tons of this product coming into the country every year, but, assuming for one moment that the Government are right, and that the mine owners of this country could not sell their products, what is the position of the Government that has 300,000 tons of concentrates coming into the country annually? No wonder that at the present time the
Government have in store something like 700,000 tons of concentrates. This contract not only has closed the mines throughout this country, but it has involved us in a very great loss. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade in the last Parliament, speaking 18 months ago, estimated the loss on this contract at something like £500,000.
In looking at the Estimates I find, on page 85, that we have there the receipts and payments for two years, and as this contract is going on for ten years, I think we may reasonably and fairly take those payments and receipts for two years. I find that the payments are £3,538,900 and the receipts during the past two years £2,505,000, showing a deficiency of over £1,000,000 in two years. Either that deficiency is a loss in the sale of these products or it is accountable in the stocks that the Government are holding at the present time. This matter was considered by the Geddes Committee, and this is what they said in their Report:
We are not familiar with the reasons for entering into the long term agreement. The extent of the loss cannot at present be estimated, but it is almost certain to run into several million pounds.
It is not only adding to the financial burden of this country—and surely we are burdened quite enough—but we are having to support these men throughout the country. I know no sight that is sadder than to go into some of these remote parts of England, where you may find these men, who have been engaged in that industry the whole of their life, who know no other trade, who are to-day unemployed, there with their wives and children, cut away in some cases from towns and railways, almost starving on the dole, and in a position for which they themselves are not in any way responsible. I would like to know what the Government are going to do in regard to this contract. Personally, I think it is a bad contract. It is unfortunate, and it is discreditable to continue it, but I have been reading recently some speeches that have been made by members of the present Government, and I find that they know a good deal about this contract. The present Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Betterton), who at one time was Chairman of the Board of Trade Departmental Committee to consider non-ferrous mines, and who pro-
bably knows as much about this industry as any man in this House, said:
I am convinced, in consequence of this Australian contract—employers and employed are alike involved in common ruin."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st February, 1922; col. 1826, Vol. 150]
May I go further, and quote what the present Prime Minister said, speaking in this House in Febraury, 1922? He said:
This contract at the moment is a bad one.… But … whatever the prospects of the world market may be, the right thing is for the Government to get out of this contract as and when opportunity arises, and that is my policy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st February, 1922; col. 1854, Vol. 150.]
I am glad to know that that is the policy of the Prime Minister, and I hope it is a policy which will be carried out at an early date. It seems to me that there are only two courses that the Government can take in regard to this Australian contract. One is to do what many a wise business man would do who had unfortunately made a bad contract, and that is to get out honourably with the least possible loss. If the Government are not prepared to do that, I think it is their duty to put this industry on the same footing as they have put the industry in Australia. They may say, in reply, that in doing that they would be subsidising a British industry, but really have they not already subsidised this industry in Australia? But I do not look upon anything that they might do in regard to this industry as a subsidy. They have done infinite harm to this country. They have robbed these people of their trade, and I think that, whatever they can do, they do, not as a subsidy, but as an act of reparation. I trust they will give it favourable consideration, and I appeal to them to put this industry on the same footing, and, if they do, I do not think any money they may lose by the sale of the product of the home industry will be any greater than the money they are paying out week by week in doles to these unfortunate men.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. CHURCHMAN: I want to put a question to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade in regard to the question of middlemen's profits, and I will illustrate what I want to put before him by taking, merely as an example, a commodity which is in very general use, namely, milk. But what I wish to say will apply to any other commodity, to coal as much
as to cream and to beer as much as to butter. I take milk as my example, because I have had an opportunity of reading recently the very interesting interim Report which has been issued by the Committee on the question of the prices of agricultural products, and that Report illustrated in a way which, I think, has never been done with any commodity since the War, the gap between the producer's price and the actual cost to the consumer. It is curious, in looking at that commodity, to see what a large difference there is between the producer's price and the cost to the consumer in Scotland and in England. The gap between those prices in Scotland is very much smaller than it is in England. We have to consider how these present prices and profits have been arrived at. It seems to me that they are entirely the result of the control established during the War. At that time, if I may still follow the example of milk, it was necessary to control the milk supply. That was a wise course, because the prices of milk and other commodities were soaring, with the result that there was what was called an ineffective demand. It was necessary to control prices, and this is what happened. The producer found a ready market and a good profit for his product. The middleman and the retailer in their turn found a ready market and probably made more profit on a restricted trade. The habit of being content to do a smaller trade at a higher rate of profit is what has remained—

The CHAIRMAN: I do not see how the hon. Baronet connects what he is saying with the Vote before the House and with the existing powers of the Board of Trade. I presume it is one of the functions of the Board of Trade to inquire generally into this, and to explain it, but while they have that power they have no control. How does the hon. Baronet connect his observations with the power of the Board of Trade in the matter?

Sir A. CHURCHMAN: I may have got a litle bit off the track, but the point I was anxious ultimately to arrive at is as to whether the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade is prepared to make some inquiry into the condition of affairs, a condition of affairs which seems to indicate that considerable profits are being made on commodities of all sorts. I imagine, that these things
can be rectified without the intervention of a Government Department and in time by the ordinary laws of supply and demand. I think it is quite possible that, when profits are being made in any particular industry, some clever man or some combination of clever men outside may see that these profits are large, and will step in and stimulate the demand by reducing prices. If not, it is quite possible—and I should like to see it in the case of milk—for the producers to combine together and by co-operation in production and distribution benefit the consumer by stimulating increased consumption by a reduction of prices. So long as prices are high there is an ineffective demand, and so long as there is an ineffective demand there is always an opening for somebody from the outside who is clever to come in. Of course, it is possible in the case of milk and other commodities that some of the present distributors might by a reduction of prices again stimulate and increase demand. I have only taken these as an example; and the questions I want to put to the Minister are these: Firstly, is the situation yet sufficiently clear for the Board to have been able to formulate a policy in regard to middleman's profit. Secondly, can the Board of Trade supply, or is it proposing to obtain, figures which will do for the price structure of other commodities generally what the Committee to which I have referred has done for milk and milk products? I understand that that Committee is also dealing with fruit, vegetables, etc. I am inclined to think that a little information under these heads would be of great interest and value to the general body of consumers.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I gathered from your intervention, Mr. Hope, during the speech of the hon. Baronet who has just concluded, that it is somewhat difficult to keep within the corners of your ruling on this particular Vote. I do suggest, however, that the points that have been raised by the hon. Baronet do come within the general powers of the Board of Trade. I suppose one must not discuss anything now that requires legislation, yet I think we may put to the President of the Board of Trade points which his administration or the administration of his Department has failed to
deal with in these particular matters. In regard to the Report of the Linlithgow Committee, to which the hon. Baronet has referred, it is interesting to note that that Committee suggested that it was not so much the points which the hon. Baronet has made concerning high prices in the London area as it was the question of the existence of a very powerful combination in that area. There are certain recommendations in that Report which I have no doubt pressure from his own side of the House as well as this may perhaps make the President deal with along the lines suggested already in this House.
The whole question of middleman's profits which the hon. Baronet has raised leads me to remind the House that the Board of Trade has altogether failed in its administration to deal with the question of exploiting the public generally with regard to prices during the post-War period. The President of the Board of Trade and his predecessors in office have been pressed again and again to take administrative or the other action necessary to deal with that particular situation. I put down a question the other day to the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the existence or expected existence of a new and very powerful combination to deal with meat, a combination which would have associated with it one of those gentlemen who received high honours at the hands of the late Coalition Government, and whose patriotism during the War was illustrated perhaps more forcibly than he would like to be reminded of now by the evidence he gave before the Royal Commission on Income Tax, in regard to removing his headquarters to escape taxation. The right hon. Gentleman, in his reply to my statement, said that the existence of these combinations was not, in his judgment, likely to be injurious to trade as a whole. I think that in making that reply the right hon. Gentleman had forgotten for the moment, although I know he was aware of it, that there is a paragraph in the Linlithgow Committee's Report concerning the adverse effect upon milk prices and the consumer in the London area by the existence of a trade combination.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The hon. Gentleman will remember that he questioned me about one particular combination. He knows perfectly well that I
expressed my views about another combine recently in his presence.

Mr. ALEXANDER: That may be so, but doubtless the right hon. Gentleman has studied the Reports of the Committee set up by his own Department two or three years ago as carefully as I myself have tried to do, and he must have come to the conclusion as to what is actually the fact, and the effect, in this particular matter. What are the actual facts? I find in the Report of the Standing Committee on Trusts that this statement occurs:
We find that there is at the present time in every important branch of industry in the United Kingdom an increasing tendency to form trade associations and combinations having for their purpose the restriction of competition and the control of prices. Many of the organisations which have been brought to our notice have been created in the last few years and by far the greater part of them appear to have come into existence since the end of the 19th century.
Mr. John Hilton, of the Statistical Branch of the Ministry of Labour, for whose ability and experience I have great respect, stated in his Report to that particular Committee that at the close of the War there were existing in the United Kingdom over 500 capitalistic associations or combines all exerting a substantial influence on the course of industry and prices. Let me give another illustration with which I am particularly familiar, because it is a commodity with which we deal. The Report of one of the Committees which the right hon. Gentleman had in mind dealt with the soap industry, and it was stated that the soap combine which
controlled over 80 per cent. of the output of soap in this country was so powerful that it was enabled to charge right through the peak period at least 1½d. per lb. more for soap than was justified.
During a rising market of the raw materials, prices to the consumer were immediately raised, but on a falling market of raw materials the stocks of soap manufactured at the higher priced raw materials were liquidated before the prices were reduced.
I might say that the Report also stated that the only serious competitor was the Co-operative Wholesale Society, who adopted exactly the opposite policy in regard to the raising and lowering of prices. As a consumers' organisation
there was given to the consumer what benefit there was in connection with that particular commodity. That might be extended to a great many other articles. I fail, therefore, to see where the right hon. Gentleman gets his arguments from, that the Reports of the various Committees under the central Profiteering Act have failed to convince him that there is need for the Board of Trade to take administrative action in regard to, shall I say, allaying public suspicions, at any rate, as to what is the effect of these trusts and combinations upon the trade of the country and on the consumer generally.
There is another thing I want to put: that is, that, in my judgment, the Reports of the inquiries conducted by his Department show quite clearly that the existence of the trusts and combinations are used to regulate output in such a way that it might be said that the capital of the trusts and combines was used to formulate a policy of "ca' canny," similar to the working men who are charged with using their labour on the "ca' canny" principle. The extent to which that may be carried was illustrated most forcibly by one of the Reports dealing with iron bedsteads. There was a pool of iron bedstead makers and the various firms in the pool were required to put out a small output. They were penalised by having to pay a fine into the pool if their output was increased beyond what was allowable, and at the end of the period the one that had produced the least drew the largest share from the pool. That was carried to such an absurd extent that the matter reached the point where one member of the pool, having ceased to manufacture at all, was actually drawing a dole for doing nothing! This is a most excellent example to the workmen of the country of the policy of ca' canny and, having regard to the remarks one hears about unemployment doles, some considerable justification for such doles when manufacturers take a dole from a pool for doing nothing. This policy was not suggested by the trade union leaders, but by those sacrosanct capitalists who are always making these charges against working men.
There is another point I wish to refer to which affects very vitally the movement with which I am connected. The right hon. Gentleman's Department set-
up a Committee to inquire into the principle of price fixing associations, and the Report they issued contained an addendum which had reference to an association called the Proprietary Articles Trade Association. That organisation consists of a body of manufacturers of proprietary articles, and of wholesalers who bound themselves to do the will of those manufacturers, and then a number of retailers also in the association, and they agree that whatever happens the public must pay a minimum charge for certain articles, and those prices are fixed.
That principle is carried to such an extent that the results of the co-operative association of consumers in dealing with these articles are absolutely negligible. The Proprietary Articles Trade Association refuses to allow any one of its members, in respect of any one of the commodities dealt with, to supply any customer in the country unless they sign an agreement to charge minimum prices for those particular articles, and in regard to co-operative societies they stipulate that if a co-operative society is allowed to purchase those particular articles—this is the land of freedom we heard about on Monday—then it must on no account give a rebate to its members whether in the form of dividend or discount, or if they do then they must add the whole of the dividend or discount to the minimum price. That condition has to be conformed to by hundreds of societies, and so serious is the position with regard to the general consuming community that the secretary of the Proprietary Articles Trade Association is now conducting a campaign, in conjunction with the Grocers' Federation, to get the whole of that principle adopted with regard to all packed grocery goods, in order to secure that no body of consumers in this country may combine together to save the middleman's profits, and then to return them to working men in order to obtain a higher spending power for their wages, and thus they will be prevented from getting any advantage at all.
Hon. Members talk about the need for dealing with the ramp in milk prices by getting the producers together, but what about the co-operation of the consumer? Why is he not to be allowed to get the proper and earned reward of his own thrift, and his own mutual and voluntary
association? He is prevented from doing this because he is placed in the hands of exploiting associations of this kind. In America the right hon. Gentleman knows that whilst anti-trust laws have been in some cases ineffective, on this particular principle with regard to price fixing it would not be possible for any firm in America to let this kind of thing last for a single month. It is only within the last six or seven months in America, with regard to an attempt to levy an unfair minimum price in regard to a certain article, that the people concerned were not merely fined, but they were sent to prison for trying to exploit the community on that basis.

The CHAIRMAN: The Board of Trade have no power to send these people to prison.

Mr. ALEXANDER: My point is, that the administrative part of this work is so important that I think the Persident of the Board of Trade ought to make strong representations, in order to see if some definite result cannot be obtained in this direction. I could say a great deal more about this situation, but I do not wish to take up too much of the time of the House, as many other hon. Members desire to speak. I wish, however, to refer to another point. It is a matter which was discussed incidentally on the Schedule of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. It is a matter which gave me cause for alarm, because I thought the right hon. Gentleman seemed rather to be running away from his position in putting this provision dealing with the sale of bread down in the Schedule.
Last year the Department of the Board of Trade had recognised sufficiently the importance of securing to the consumers a proper weight standard in purchasing bread, and they introduced a Bill called the Sale of Bread Bill. In that Measure there was a snag with reference to Scotland. In Scotland they have a protection in regard to this matter under the Scottish Boroughs Police Acts, and it deals with batch loaves of 2 lbs. and 4 lbs. weight. In drafting that Bill it was made to appear that Scotland was to be the only place where the extra penalties were to be laid down. We have made it clear to the people of Scotland that whatever steps need to be taken with regard to Scotland shall also be taken with regard to England and Wales.
What we want to secure is that the powers which the Board of Trade already possess under the Sale of Food Order shall be made permanent by legislation, and we hope that as a result of his administrative experience of the Sale of Food Order the right hon. Gentleman will take urgent and definite steps to clear up this constantly recurring muddle about the bread business, and get it definitely set right so that the public, the trade, and the consumers will know exactly where they stand.
The only other point of criticism I want to raise is in reference to a conversation we had with the Prime Minister in December, 1921. Probably the President of the Board of Trade has made a study of the history of his own Department, and if he has he will know that in the "nineties" the Liberal Government decided that it was necessary to have a Labour Department in the Board of Trade, and a labour section was set up, and included in that section was a small co-operative section in the Board of Trade at the time. That co-operative section was transferred with the Labour Section of the Board of Trade to the Ministry of Labour when it became a separate Ministry. Having regard to the increasing importance of co-operation and co-operative activities generally in the world, as well as in this country, it is of the greatest possible importance that the great Department in this country known as the Board of Trade should have definitely one section of it with inside and accurate knowledge of what, co-operative trade and principles really mean, and definite and accurate knowledge of what co-operative trade and principles are doing right throughout the world at this particular moment.
I think if the right hon. Gentleman will go back over the history of the past two or three years, he will agree that if there had been a Co-operative Department at that time able to advise the Cabinet some of the errors which have been made would not have been made. When we met the Prime Minister on this subject in December, 1921, he said that he hoped I would not include him in a charge which I then made of general ignorance of what the co-operative movement really was, and what it was doing in this country and abroad. Probably the President of the Board of Trade now
knows all about it, but, speaking generally, Government Departments are astoundingly ignorant of what the co-operative movement really is, what its trade consists of, and what its importance is in the world generally. On the continent generally there has been an increase in recogition of co-operation by all governments. In France, where co-operation amongst agriculturists has been far more successful than anything we have here, co-operation is definitely recognised by the Government, and a grant was made to establish a Chair of Cooperation at the Paris University, and which is occupied by Professor Gide.
In the case of Germany, as the right hon. Gentleman knows from the fact that he has represented this country at various economic conferences, they appointed a technical adviser to the labour section of the German organisation represented at the International Labour Bureau at Geneva, a technical adviser selected from the co-operative movement in Germany. In Belgium they have a bureau which includes the Belgium co-operative section, and in almost every country the increasing importance of the co-operative movement from a trade and social welfare point of view, is recognised by the Government. In this country, which is the home of co-operation, which gave birth to it, and which has achieved more success in regard to co-operation than any other country in the world, if the Government are not actually hostile they say, "We do not want to have anything to do with you."

Mr. WALLHEAD: Their supporters are hostile.

6.0 P.M.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I am aware that the President of the Board of Trade presided over the Overseas Trade Department with considerable ability, and the Geddes Committee recommended that that Department should be kept on. That Committee, in dealing with that particular Department, printed as a sort of extra testimonial to the Department a number of letters from various traders who, through the Department, had definitely obtained business. I have nothing to say against that. I think it is an excellent thing that the Overseas Trade Department should be so exceedingly useful to the trade of this country, but I suggest that we require alongside this Department, financed by the
Government to assist trade of that kind, equal opportunities for world information concerning co-operative trading and trading possibilities as in the case of other overseas trade. Perhaps when the right hon. Gentleman gets a little more money at his disposal than he has now, and when he has looked into the question—

Whereupon the Gentleman Usher of the BLACK ROD being come with a Message, the Chairman left the Chair.

Mr. SPEAKER: resumed the Chair.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went, and, having returned,

Mr. SPEAKER: reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Finance Act, 1923.
2. Alderney (Transfer of Property, etc.) Act, 1923.
3. Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, 1923.
4. Explosives Act, 1923.
5. War Memorials (Local Authorities' Powers) Act, 1923.
6. Matrimonial Causes Act, 1923.
7. Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1923.
8. Forestry (Transfer of Woods) Act, 1923.
9. Cotton Industry Act, 1923.
10. Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Act, 1923.
11. Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 3) Act, 1923.
12. Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 4) Act, 1923.
13. Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 5) Act, 1923.
14. Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 6) Act, 1923.
15. Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 7) Act, 1923.
2372
16. Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 8) Act, 1923.
17. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Frimley and Farnborough District Water) Act, 1923.
18. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Calne Water) Act, 1923.
19. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Bridlington Extension) Act, 1923.
20. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Bridport Extension) Act, 1923.
21. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Brighton Extension) Act, 1923.
22. Bradford Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Order (1922) Confirmation Act, 1923.
23. Buchanan Trust Order Confirmation Act, 1923.
24. Fraserburgh Harbour Order Confirmation Act, 1923.
25. South West of Scotland Blind Asylum Order Confirmation Act, 1923.
26. Airdrie, Coatbridge, and District Water Board Order Confirmation Act, 1923.
27. Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1923.
28. Greenock Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1923.
29. North Berwick Burgh Extension Order Confirmation Act, 1923.
30. Hawkshead Mission Chapel Charity Scheme Confirmation Act, 1923.
31. Lucas's Hospital Charity Scheme Confirmation Act, 1923.
32. Tancred's Charities Scheme Confirmation Act, 1923.
33. Provisional Order (Marriages) Confirmation Act, 1923.
34. Bank of England Act, 1923.
35. Great Western Railway (Swansea Harbour Vesting) Act, 1923.
36. Newhaven and Seaford Sea Defences Act, 1923.
37. Hoylake and West Kirby Gas and Water Act, 1923.
38. Caledonian Railway Act, 1923.
39. Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Act, 1923.
2373
40. South Elmsall and District Gas Act, 1923.
41. Oakham Gas and Electricity Act, 1923.
42. River Wear Watch Act, 1923.
43. Rawmarsh Urban District Council Act, 1923.
44. London and North Eastern Railway Act, 1923.
45. Caledonian Insurance Company's Act, 1923.
46. Great Western Railway (Additional Powers) Act, 1923.
47. Maidstone Corporation Act, 1923.
48. Stalybridge, Hyde, Mossley and Dukinfield Tramways and Electricity Board Act, 1923.
49. Tees Valley Water Act, 1923.
50. Port of London (Dock Charges) Act. 1923.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Again considered in Committee.

[Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]

Question again proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £262,448, be granted for the said Service."

Mr. ALEXANDER: I had almost concluded what I had to say when we were interrupted by the Message from the Lords. I was trying to impress upon the President of the Board of Trade that, when his Department had more money at its disposal than is, perhaps, the case at the present time, some of that extra money should be used for developing the already efficient Intelligence Department of the Board of Trade, in order to get wider knowledge, statistics and information with regard to co-operation, not only in this country, but internationally. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that there are 29 national co-operative trading organisations now affiliated in one International Co-operative Alliance. I think the Board of Trade ought to be fully informed as to the whole of the possibilities of co-operative trading between these bodies. In view of the interruption, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I reiterate these three points: First of all, I do not agree with his view or his policy concerning trusts and combines in this country, and
I urge that definite action ought to be taken with regard to the menace to the consumer of price-fixing associations like the Proprietary Articles Trade Association. Secondly, we desire that the position with regard to the sale of bread by weight in this country should be dealt with more definitely with a view to the ratification of the present temporary Order in a definite form; and, thirdly, we think we might have, as is the case in other countries in Europe, where co-operation is increasing by leaps and bounds, far more sympathetic and official recognition from his Department than we have at present.

Colonel Sir CHARLES BURN: I wish to bring to the notice of the President of the Board of Trade, or, if it be in his Department, the Noble Lord the Parliamentary Secretary, the question of reparation to the fishermen in my constituency who suffered so seriously as the result of enemy action in the late War. I specially wish to bring forward the case of the town of Brixham, because that town is mainly dependent on the fishing industry, with which all the people who live there are in some way connected. These fishermen, as is known to everyone, performed most gallant deeds during the War. They did patrol work in every quarter of the globe—in the North Sea, the Mediterranean and elsewhere—and they suffered very serious losses, especially the men who remained at home carrying on the fishing industry. In so doing they were adding to the food supply of the nation, which at that time was even more valuable than it is to-day. Those who remained at home to fish lost many of their boats by enemy action, and, moreover, those boats were sunk in the best part of the fishing grounds. The town of Brixham has suffered more in proportion through the action of the enemy than almost any other town in the United Kingdom.
The fact that the boats were sunk in the best part of the fishing ground makes it next to impossible for the fishermen to pursue their calling in that part of the sea where they previously did so. It, must be remembered that it is impossible to put a buoy for every wreck, and that only general directions can be given as to where the wrecks are, in order that
the boats may avoid putting their trawls down in that particular area. Consequently, the sinking of those boats involves much loss of gear to the fishermen. I am sure my right hon. Friend will realise that, since the price of everything has gone up to such an extent, it is almost impossible for these men to replace the gear that they lost, and the price of boats is so high that they cannot, un fortunately, replace those that have been lost. Up to date, the amounts that they have received from the Reparation Commission have represented only an infinitesimal part of the loss that they have sustained. It must be remembered, also, that in the fishing industry the men are are not able to come under the National Insurance Act, because they always arrange on the share system. This is a very serious matter for them, and they suffer very greatly in consequence.
Surely, these boats having been lost by the action of the Germans during the War, these people, of all people, are the ones who should receive compensation. In giving them compensation, we should not only be assisting to provide the fishermen with boats to replace those which have been lost, but also assisting the shopkeepers in the town, because the amount of business done there is very much curtailed owing to the losses sustained by the fishermen, the result of which losses is to diminish very much the purchasing power of the community. This industry is so important, and the number of men employed in it is so great, that I feel I shall not plead in vain for something to be done through the Reparation Commission to enable these men to replace the boats and gear they have lost as a result of their service during the War. I appeal to my right hon. Friend, with all the earnestness at my command, to take what I have said to heart, and to see that everything that can possibly be done is done in order to set this industry on its legs again. If it cannot be restarted, it will mean that the younger men will leave for other towns or other countries, and that in course of time the town of Brixham will be more or less depopulated. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will do all that is in his power to see that reparation is paid to these men who served their country so well, and than whom none are more worthy.

Mr. JOHN MURRAY: When I came down to the House this afternoon I had no intention of speaking, but the speech of the hon. Member for the Hillsborough Division of Sheffield (Mr. A. V. Alexander) brought me to my feet with memories of the past. The hon. Member has been speaking about certain committees attached to the Board of Trade, one of them dealing with the prices of building materials, and one with the price of milk. The operations of those Committees reminded me of certain speeches that were made by the right hon. Gentleman who is now the President of the Board of Trade, in the almost distant past, namely, about May, 1921, when the Central Profiteering Committee, of which I happened to be chairman during the last year of its existence, came to an end. I well remember the long series of Reports upon trusts and combines which that committee, through its numerous sub-committees, elaborated for the benefit of the whole community. I well remember the general trend of those Reports, and their steady insistence that, while British business is honest and straight on the whole, and free from the tryannies, exactions and extortions that can be alleged with some truth against the trust system in America, at all events in the more distant past, nevertheless, the public interest required that certain steps should be taken, and that the Board of Trade should be armed with certain powers of inquiry, investigation, and, where need be, rectification where abuses might be found to exist. I remember a whole handful of Reports in that year, with the details of which I will not trouble the Committee, touching the building trades. Their general burden was that there was in those trades sufficient organisation of the producers to make the position of the consumers a little difficult, a little dangerous, a little weak. All these Reports, extending to far more trades than the building trade, ask that some permanent steps should be taken by the Board of Trade to remedy these evils or to obviate these anticipated evils.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member's suggestions were carried out, they would involve legislation.

Mr. MURRAY: At that time the Board of Trade desired the advice of the Standing Committee on Trusts and sent a communication requesting their advice on a
matter which was closely connected with the regulation of these amalgamations for the protection of the public interest The Standing Committee considered the matter confidentially and prepared a Report, which was sent to the Board of Trade, and it was understood that the Government of that day intended to take certain steps. As far as I know no steps of any kind, not even administrative steps, have been taken. The Board of Trade has not done its duty in the continuance of that administrative action in saving the body politic from the discontent and backbiting and quarrelsomeness between classes which a proper method of administration would have saved them from. If the Reports of those Committees are true, those rather dangerous organisations which existed in 1920 and 1921, and which those investigating Committees held might have certain after-effects, continue and they are probably more powerful from the killing off of weaker competitors, and the failure of the Board of Trade to give clear information and a definite reassurance regarding trusts, shows that it realises that these large amalgamations of associations, so powerful financially and economically, are not helpful to the community. The Board of Trade has the definite duty of investigation and of re-assurance, and of safeguarding the interests of the consumers, and, so far as I can see, looking back into that past which was full of hope and promise, those happy times have gone. We scarcely know where we are with foolish little Committees at one Ministry or the other pretending to hold the balance between producers and consumers. I believe we are not entitled to ask where we are going, because that would be legislation, and legislation to-day is taboo, at least to those who must put questions, if not to those who can give the answers.

Mr. D. REID: I want to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman in connection with the matter which was raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Torquay (Sir C. Burn). It relates to other parts of the Kingdom as well. I have had a great many letters from fishermen whose boats were lost by enemy action during the War. They have not, I think, in many cases received any compensation. They are deprived of their livelihood. In some cases, on
application to the Board of Trade, they received statements which, I think, they and their friends construed as being a proof that they would be paid compensation in the long run, and on the strength of those letters some of them borrowed money in order to provide themselves with new boats. In a number of those cases they are being pressed for repayment and their position is very difficult and very pitiable. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to try to do something for them? I ask him to consider these cases sympathetically, and see whether something cannot be done to enable them to be put in a position to resume their occupation. They performed notable service during the War. In many cases their boats were lost when they were actually engaged on work of national importance, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to do something for them.

Mr. J. HOPE SIMPSON: I wish to revert to the subject of the Dye Stuffs Regulations. The trouble under which the dyeing industry is now labouring has been represented in this House on more occasions than one. It was the subject of consideration at a meeting of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, of which, doubtless, the right hon. Gentleman has received a report, where representatives of the dye manufacturing industry and of the dye stuff traders and users met and addressed the chamber. The report of that meeting gives very full information of an important character, which I commend to the right hon. Gentleman's attention, because it points out in very clear language the disabilities under which the dye industry is at present working, owing to the administration of that branch of his Department. One has to look at this question from various points of view. I have no brief for the manufacturers of British dyes, who, I have no doubt, are quite well able to look after themselves. The hon. Member for Widnes (Dr. Clayton) had nothing but praise for the administration of the Act.
The effect on the merchants is probably the greatest of all. The chief opposition comes from that quarter. The hon. Member seemed to suggest that it did not matter very much what happened to the dye merchant, but, as a fact, the dye merchant plays a very important part in the organisation of the dyeing indus-
try. He deals with the small men, and he has opportunities for scientific investigation, and he also has experience on a far more important scale than any of these small men can have, and, as a fact, the smaller dye users resort to the larger merchants and rely on their skill and experience for advice with regard to the dyes they shall use. Again, the merchant has machinery for importing and for dealing with large quantities of dye, whereas the small man would find great difficulty in obtaining small amounts of dye at all if it were not for the merchant. This practice is not restricted to dye users, but also to those who use what are called dyes in preparing cordials, and they often club together and obtain dyes from the merchant, and the whole of that trade would be carried on with great difficulty if the merchants were not there.
The merchant, under the present administration, is being systematically squeezed out of the trade. The greatest evil of all is the compulsion on the merchant to reveal the name of his customer. I have no doubt there is some good reason for that which the right hon. Gentleman will explain. The merchant himself feels it very seriously, because that is one of the trade secrets which he naturally wishes to keep to himself. On the Committee there are members whom he regards as trade rivals, and to them least of all he would desire to expose the list of his customers. Apart from that, there is great delay, which interferes with their business at every turn. The right hon. Gentleman has had many instances of delays, and I yesterday received two more complaints which I should like to present to the Committee. Here is a case which occurred on 15th March, when a merchant of 100 years' standing applied for a licence for 500 lbs. of patent blue A. A British substitute was offered to him, and in the letter the Committee added:
Applications for licences based on price-grounds will only be considered from the consumer concerned.
The customer's name was revealed and it is alleged that he was visited by the traveller of a British maker who was represented on the Commission. Eventually a licence for 120 lbs. was granted instead of the 500 lbs. which was asked. At first sight that would seem to be an interference with the ordinary course of trade, which is not only unnecessary but delibera-
tely vexatious. Here is a second case which was brought to my notice yesterday. On 13th April a merchant applied for crystal scarlet 6R. and a British substitute was offered in the ordinary course. In the letter the Committee wrote that they were only prepared to consider applications from the actual consumers concerned. This merchant is acting on behalf of a group of cordial manufacturers and he had to reveal their names and they had to make their applications in order to get the dye. In June, the application having been made in April, he was informed that the dye was available from reparation stock. There are many instances of the sort—we have had many advertised by question and answer across the Floor of the House—so there can be no doubt that such cases occur, and the merchants complain that their business is being interfered with in various ways. First of all, there is the price of the dye, and then there is the uncertainty whether they will get it or not. They cannot make a contract unless they are certain of getting what they contract to hand over. Then there is the delay which occurs in every case. Then there is the inquisition which occurs in practically every case. Finally there is the suspicion that there is unfair competition owing to the fact that they have to reveal their secrets to their trade competitors.
There is one more aspect which has not been considered, and that is that we used to have an entrepot trade in dyes which, I speak from memory, in 1920 was somewhere in the neighbourhood of £5,000,000, and which had decreased in 1922 to £1,250,000.
I want to quote a short extract from the report from the Manchester Chamber of Commerce meeting, where the case of the merchant was presented by Mr. Reynolds, who is well known to the Members representing the Manchester Divisions. He said:
The Bills were conceived under war conditions, and rushed through Parliament without proper consideration or opportunity for Amendment. The Acts, bad in themselves, have been made insufferable through imperfect administration. Without achieving the objects aimed at, incredible delays, inconvenience, uncertainty, inconsistency and extortions have resulted in diversion of trade, and in a national detriment Infinitely greater than any benefits that have accrued, or are likely to accrue.
That is the representative of the merchants speaking to a special meeting of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce called to consider the question.
There is also the point of view of the dye user. His objection is the administrative difficulty and delay which occur when he applies. In this connection I should like to quote one case which I think, speaking from memory, has been before the House on a previous occasion. It is the case of Laing and Company, Wellclose Square, who on the 17th January applied for two hundredweights of blue de Liono. They have a secret process involving the dye to exposure to ammonia, and they considered that this dye was the only one that would stand that exposure to ammonia. A British substitute was offered, namely, pure soluble blue. I had in my possession a small bottle of each of these dyes, and a small bottle of each of the dyes when they had been treated by ammonia, but, unfortunately, two of the bottles got broken in my locker, so I am not able to produce them in the House. The effect of treating the British substitute with ammonia was that in two minutes that dark blue dye looked like dirty water, with a small brown sediment at the bottom. The German dye treated with ammonia, two months afterwards was exactly the same as the untreated German dye. That was established eventually to the satisfaction of the Committee, and on the 27th February, one month after the application, 20 lbs. of the 2 cwt. that had been applied for was granted, in consideration of the amount of the previous trade of the firm. That seems to indicate an anticipation that no firm is going to increase its trade. If a firm is increasing its trade it is clearly very much to its advantage that it should be rationed on its previous trade, as was done in this case. Thereupon, there were further representations, and in March an additional 36 lbs. was granted.
There is a case quoted in connection with the Manchester Chamber of Commerce meeting, where Italy offered German fast colour for calico printing at 3s. 3d. a lb., and this was accepted by users in England, who were using inferior English dyes at 27s. 6d. in one case and at 30s. in another case per lb. There was great delay in obtaining the licence, and when it was finally obtained they could not get the dye, because it had all
been sold by the Italian dealers. These are cases in which the administration of the Act has caused trouble to the users of dyes in this country.
Increased price also puts a handicap on our dye industry in comparison to the dye industries of other countries. There is a dye which is called Swiss wool green which costs 3s. 9d. in Germany and 7s. 6d. in England, for possibly an inferior dye. The French buy the German dye at 3s. 9d., and the result is that the French manufacturers of Roubaix are able to sell green serges and gabardines in England at 2d. per yard cheaper than our own manufactured and dyed article produced in England. The cost of dyes was quoted in a question put to the right hon. Gentleman on the 5th June last. The differences are almost incredible. The hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. H. H. Spencer) put a question in regard to a case where the British price for two tons of dye was £1,736 more than the foreign price—£868 per ton higher than the foreign article. The hon. Member for Penrith (Mr. Collison) mentioned a dye that was £364 a ton more expensive than the foreign article. Within the last fortnight I received a cable from Australia, asking me about the prices and quality of indigo used in England, and on inquiry I found that the price per ton is £400 more than the German article. This is a terrible handicap to our own manufacturers.
It is often said that the dye represents a very small amount of the price of manufacture, but a gentleman representing the users at the Manchester meeting in question said:
To put it in another way. The largest concern in that trade consumes annually 5,000,000 lbs. of colour, and taking the minimum and maximum so-called negligible figures of 1s. and 4s. per lb."—
that is, the difference in the price of the British and the foreign dyes—
this would mean respectively 12½ per cent. and 50 per cent. on its ordinary share capital.
That shows conclusively the importance of the difference of price between the foreign dyes and the English-produced article.
On the 5th June last, the hon. Member for South Bradford asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he was aware that the quantity of grey cotton cloth exported had increased by 50 per cent., whereas printed and
coloured woven cloth had decreased by 38 per cent. in 1922 as compared with 1920. The President of the Board of Trade replied:
I am aware that as between the two years quoted there was a large percentage increase in the exports of grey cotton cloth, and a substantial, though smaller, percentage decrease in the exports of dyed and printed cloth; but I am not prepared to accept the view that this is due mainly to the price of dyestuffs."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th June, 1923; col. 1943, Vol. 164.]
I have got the figures out for 1920 and 1922, and it is desirable that these figures should be placed on record. The exports of cotton greys unbleached in 1920 amounted to 968½ million yards, and in 1922 they amounted to 1,519¼ million yards, an increase of 55 per cent. Although we have had a trade slump there is an increase of 55 per cent. in the exports of cotton grey unbleached goods. When we come to the dyed goods, they are given in the returns under three descriptions—cotton piece goods, dyed in the piece, cotton piece goods, printed, and coloured cottons made of dyed yarns. For brevity I will take them together. In 1920 there was exported 2,040½ million yards, and in 1922 the figure had decreased to 1,344½ million yards, or a fall of over 35 per cent. Therefore, we have these facts that in a time of slump the trade in cotton grey unbleached increased by 55 per cent., while the trade in the dyed goods decreased by over 35 per cent.
Where do these cotton grey unbleached goods go? The Netherlands in 1920 took 8,000,000 yards, and in 1922 29⅓ million yards; Belgium in 1920 took 11¾, million yards, and in 1922 21,000,000 yards. Germany in 1920 took 4,000,000 yards, and in 1922 she took 99⅔ million yards, while Switzerland took 36½ million yards in 1920 and 185½ million yards in 1922. That seems to me absolutely conclusive proof that our dyeing industry is a dying industry. The raw cloth is being exported to other countries where they can dye cheaper, owing to the cheaper price of dyestuffs. If we want more proof of that, let us consider the figures before the War. In 1913 the Netherlands only took 5,000,000 yards and in 1922 they took 29⅓ million yards. Belgium, which took 21 million yards in 1922, only took one-third of a million yards in 1913. Germany took 2¾ million yards in the year before the War and 92⅔ million
yards In 1922. Switzerland took 6½ million yards before the War and 185½ million yards in 1922. What is the reason for that? The right hon. Gentleman says that he does not believe it is due to the price of dyestuffs. Then why is there this sudden expansion in the exports of undyed cloth compared with the expected contraction in the exports of dyed cotton goods? Surely there is an obvious reason, and in the absence of some other reason it is legitimate to conclude that this fall in the export of dyed cloth and this rise in the export of undyed cloth is due to the administration of the Act which we on this side dislike so much.

Mr. PERRING: Can the hon. Member give a comparison between 1922 and 1914?

Mr. SIMPSON: I have given the figures before the War. That is, in 1913; but I can give the following figures: the Netherlands took, in 1912, 6,000,000 yards; 1913, 5,000,000 yards; in 1920, 8,000,000 yards; and in 1922, 29,000,000 yards. I will only give one further case: Switzerland, in 1912, took 7,000,000 yards; in 1913, 6,500,000 yards; in 1920, 36,500,000 yards; and in 1922, 185,500,000 yards.
7.0 P.M.
The object of this legislation was to provide insurance against difficulty in time of war. The British Mission which reported on the enemy chemical factories in the occupied zone, in regard to the provisions of the munitions of war, in February, 1919, stated:
The key to Germany's war production of explosives was the Haber process for the production of ammonia from atmospheric nitrogen.
The right hon. Gentleman is probably well aware that we now have in this country a factory producing atmospheric nitrogen. It is a very large factory run by Messrs. Brunner Mond and Company, and it is so constructed as to be available for large and rapid expansion if necessary. Therefore, we have at our disposal the insurance which we are seeking in this dyestuff legislation. At the meeting in Manchester, the representatives of the merchants pointed out that it was not without significance that two of the most profitable dye manufacturing concerns, the Clayton Aniline Company and the British Alizarine Company, both Manchester companies, were those which received the least assistance from the Government.
The defence of the right hon. Gentleman will doubtless be this, that if British dyes are to be protected this delay and this inquisition is inevitable It is quite true that if they are to be protected in this manner that is inevitable; and that is the condemnation of this thing.
The representative of the dye users, speaking at Manchester that day, put the case in this way. He said:
The only difference between the consumers and the manufacturers"—
so far as dyestuffs are concerned—
is that the consumers, with a great deal of right on their side, do not think that this industry, which is also required as a national industry, should be built up at the expense of the consumer. If there is any other way by which this industry could be supported let us explore it. We set out with the firm conviction that the industry is needed, both nationally and commercially; but there is a very great difficulty to-day in getting our Government to face anything in the way of subsidy as such.
That is quite true and, we think, very satisfactory.
At the time of the Second Reading of the Act, the right hon. Member for Hill-head (Sir R. Horne), who was then President of the Board of Trade, said:
There will neither be delay nor, as far as I can perceive, difficulty in granting these licences. Let us say, for instance, that a licence is required for a dye which is not made in this country. It is perfectly obvious that a licence will be granted quite readily for that dye.
I recommend to the President of the Board of Trade that he should administer this Act in that spirit. That was the intention at the time; let us have that intention carried out, and let us, so far as is possible, have the delays reduced, have this abominable inquisition minimised, and have the merchants as well as the users sympathetically treated. Where it is impossible to grant a licence without inquiry, which will last for a considerable time, would it not be possible to arrange for a temporary licence for a smaller amount while the inquiry was going on?

Mr. ADAMS: While I desire to express my commiseration with previous speakers upon the errors and abuses of the late Government, from the fruits of which we are suffering, particularly in the matter of the Australian Concentrates Contract,
I wish to direct the attention of the President of the Board of Trade to a matter in which his Department is very materially concerned, and which is a very great grievance to the people of the North of England. That is, the absence of a United States Consulate at the Port of Newcastle. This grievance has lasted since 1st September last.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Fitzroy): I think that comes in on another Vote, that for the Foreign Office.

Mr. ADAMS: I wish to point out, without going into the details, that as this is a matter which affects the trade of the Port of Newcastle very detrimentally. I should imagine it is a matter of great concern to the President of the Board of Trade.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No doubt it is a matter of very great concern to the President of the Board of Trade, but it does not come in under this Vote.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Would it not be in order to refer to this in the hope that the President of the Board of Trade can bring friendly pressure to bear on the Department concerned? In Hull we are being constantly crowded out by the constituents of the hon. Member for West Newcastle-on-Tyne (Mr. Adams).

Mr. ADAMS: It was on the intervention of the Board of Trade that this Consulate was closed by the Foreign Office.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Vote 5 is the Vote which has to do with this particular subject, and not this Vote.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I point out that the Vote deals with our own Consuls, and not with foreign Consuls. This is a question of the American Consul at Newcastle, and concerns the President of the Board of Trade. The American Consul, because of his alleged interference with British shipping lines, was withdrawn. As it affects British trade, would it not be possible, at any rate, to refer to it in passing?

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: That would not be in order on this Vote.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The hon. Gentleman who spoke first in this Debate expressed regret that I did not open with a statement. In view of the fact that I knew a great many hon. Members wanted to take part in the Debate, and were
likely to raise a great variety of points, I thought I should better serve the convenience of the Committee if I delayed until shortly before dinner-time, and then replied to the general points raised, rather than if I made a general speech at the first. I think probably the Committee will agree that that is a convenient self-denying ordinance if a new model.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: We will have you up again.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I have not the least doubt we shall have the hon. and gallant Gentleman up again.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: If your reply is not satisfactory.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am afraid if it were so I could not guarantee to keep the hon. and gallant Gentleman silent. He would then feel bound to rise to express his satisfaction. The Debate has ranged over a rather wide field, and I think it will be convenient if I deal as briefly as I can—though I must go into the points—with the more important issues which have been raised. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Shinwell) expressed some criticism on speeches of mine, which he had done me the honour to read, but, perhaps, not to read completely. He said I had expressed an undue optimism. I have always tried to feel whatever optimism is possible in a situation, because I do not believe that any good is done by undue pessimism. But, in any review I have tried to give of the trade situation, I have based it on the facts as they were known to me at the time. From time to time the prospects have varied, but I have always made it clear, in every speech of the kind I have delivered, that it was impossible to give a forecast of a really optimistic character as to the progress of trade, unless one could be satisfied that stable conditions throughout the world were likely to develop and be maintained.
Broadly speaking, what has been the progress of trade? In the beginning of 1922 we started with a deficit on our export trade—when you take values at a common measure, equalising pre-War and post-War prices—of something like 35 per cent. At the end of 1922, that deficit had been reduced to 25 per cent. Though it is difficult to speak with cer-
tainty as to the course of home trade, the best estimate one can make is that probably the progress at home was about equivalent to the progress made abroad. At the beginning of this year the deficit was still further reduced, and we touched a point when I suppose our export trade was something like 20 per cent. less than the normal of pre-War. I am speaking in fairly general terms. That alone has obviously not been sufficient to absorb anything like the whole of the unemployment there is, and one has to bear a further thing in mind that even if we could restore our trade position to what it was before the War, we certainly would not be employing as many men, because the efficiency of production today is considerably greater, owing to improvements in machinery, and so on, than it was before the War.
The hon. Gentleman has quoted statistics. He said, with perfect truth, that the last export returns show a falling off from the export returns for the month that went before, but it has been pointed out in some quarters that they show a considerable volume of trade. I wish I could believe—I wish I had the evidence before me to believe—that the amount of trade which is shown in the export returns of the last month or two months was any measure of the export trade likely to be shown six months hence. I do not believe—I cannot, unfortunately, believe—that it is so. I have been in touch, so as to form the best estimates I can, with merchants, with bankers, and with manufacturers representing all the great industries in this country. Almost unanimously they tell the same story. Orders are not coming in, and the reason is the general uncertainty which is caused by the failure to obtain settled and stable conditions in Europe.
I do not want to go into wider questions of foreign policy, but I think it is right that I should give to the Committee, on this occasion, the best appreciation I can of the trade position. I say at once that throughout the industries of this country—and I can hardly find an exception in any of the greater industries—the prospects are nothing like as good as they were last December or last January. While there is work in many cases in factories to-day, we cannot see the orders in sight which
are going to keep those factories fully occupied, or even as fully occupied as they are to-day, in the next six months. The reason is not far to seek. After all, this country does not do its trade merely as direct trade from abroad to this country, and as from this country to countries abroad. That is profoundly true, and while we sometimes disagree as to the particular policies to be followed, do let us, in a vital matter of this kind, appreciate what the real facts are, because it is necessary, whatever the policy should be, that the people of this country should understand what the industrial situation is. The credits which are used to purchase from us are not simply credits from direct sales, but credits created through sales from India, the Straits Settlements, China, and South America, to Europe and other countries; and those credits, created by those sales made in other countries, are the credits which are used to purchase goods in this country.
That is the reason why whatever temporary orders may come through the unsettlement of one country or another in the long run—and it will not be such a long run—a block in trade anywhere, the incapacity of any country to produce and buy and sell owing to unstable conditions, is bound to affect the general volume of trade, and is bound to re-act on purchases which are made in this country. For that reason it is vital to this country to get settled and stable conditions. I may add one other thing. Vitally necessary as a settlement is, even if you could get a settlement, on the Continent, the aftermath of the War has left many of those countries in such a condition that they cannot be for a considerable time the great trading communities which they were before the War. Therefore no policy which considers merely the restoration of continental markets is going to be adequate to deal with the British situation. If one looks at the past the times of greatest industrial ease in this country have been the times of great development in some new country or continent.
I suppose that the easiest times that this country ever had were from 1850 to 1875, when great developments were going on in the Continent of America. It is only through some such possible opening as that in the coming generation that we can
retrieve our industrial position. I do not want to go here and now over all the ground which I ventured to traverse in the Debate which we had in this House some months ago on Imperial development, but I would say that the most fruitful policy that this country can pursue, if it takes a long view, is a steady, delibrate policy of development of Imperial resources, whether in the Dominions or the Crown Colonies. Economic interests point to the necessity of drawing as much as we can of the raw materials from countries other than those to whom we are a debtor, and to the need of drawing those raw materials from countries whose development will immediately not only supply us with those raw materials, but will immediately and increasingly supply us with a market for our manufactures, and will in an increasing degree afford opportunity of settlement and a better life for people in this country who cannot at the present moment obtain it here. Those two policies must go hand in hand. The development of Imperial trade and the settlement of European conditions are the lines along which lies the greatest hope of recovering and maintaining our industrial position.
I will deal with one other specific point that was raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Hull. He referred, as he does on many occasions, to Russia. He said, "Why do you not trade with Russia?"

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I did not say that.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: We are trading with Russia, but I do not think that we should be able to trade with Russia a great deal more if, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested, we alter our relationship with that country.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I did not say that.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: He said, "Look at Denmark. Denmark has made a trade agreement with Russia."

Mr. SHINWELL: It was I who said that.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am very sorry, but both hon. Members intervene so frequently in Debate that for the moment I had transposed their sentiments,
and I must apologise to both. The hon. Gentleman opposite said, "Let us carry this matter further." Do not let us raise any false hopes by that kind of suggestion. Trade really has nothing to do with diplomatic agreements. Trade is a matter of confidence between those who trade. If you were to establish the closest diplomatic relationship with Russia you would not make traders trade any more with Russia than they do at present. Nothing will make traders trade with Russia except confidence in Russia and in the willingness of the Russian Government and people to discharge their obligations.

Mr. SHINWELL: Does not a commercial convention of that kind imply confidence on both sides?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: If that be so it will be, obviously, most improper to make an agreement of that kind with Russia until we have such confidence.

Mr. ADAMS: Is the consular service reestablished there now?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: There is a trading mission, and I think that there are two Consuls in Russia, but if you were to establish 60 Consuls in Russia people will only do business there if they know that they are going to be paid. Consuls do not create business, though they help the business which is being carried out. Let me remove one other delusion of the hon. Gentleman. He thinks that you necessarily get a great deal more trade if you have a definite agreement. That is not true. Even the converse of that is not true. Russians do not fail to trade with a country because they have not got an agreement with it. It is interesting to note that the Russian Government placed with Sweden one single order for locomotives which, on a very conservative estimate, must have been a greater order than the total amount of the export trade done between this country and Russia ever since the War. Yet Sweden has no trade agreement with Russia. And not only that, but when a trade agreement was broached the Swedish Parliament turned it down. I am not saying whether that is right or wrong. I am not going to enter into the question whether we should or should not have a trade agreement with Russia. What I want to point out is that it is utterly unfair to raise
the hopes of people in this country that they will get trade by some diplomatic means.
The Russians will continue to buy goods where it suits them best. When it suits them to buy goods from countries with which they have no trading agents they do so. They buy from Sweden, America as well as from this country. Neither the presence nor the absence of a trade agreement or a diplomatic agreement is going to create any great volume of trade in that direction. It can only come in conditions in which trade becomes normal. The hon. and gallant Gentleman did say, "Why not extend export credit facilities to Russia?" He said, "You always give me the same answer." I know I do. When Russia creates the condition of confidence which have enabled the British Government to give credit to other countries then the British Government will put at the disposal of Russia whatever credit facilities the British Government provide for the assistance of trade, but until those conditions of mutual confidence are established there is no justification for such action. He said, "I do not ask this for the benefit of Russia, I ask it for the benefit of Britain." But suppose that I did to-morrow put the whole benefit of the export credits machinery before English traders to assist them in their Russian credits, would one of them take advantage of it? The export credit system is that the British Government takes part of the risk with a firm. The firm does not come forward with a proposition that it should share in the risk unless the firm is satisfied that there is good security that the person with whom it deals is going to meet his obligations. I do not believe that, even if I was prepared at this moment to open either that or any other machinery of credit for dealing with Russia, it would be of any use until those conditions have been re-established which are necessary for all sound business. No matter what machinery we put at their disposal, we cannot restore trade until they restore confidence, the basis on which trade rests.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that trading credits would not be of any advantage, will he explain why he offered them to the Russian Government at The Hague as an inducement to come to terms with us?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is wrong. I offered them to the Russian Government on condition that they would accept the whole arrangement. The proposal which I put to the Russian Government at The Hague was, "Acknowledge your obligations. Come to terms. Create those conditions which are the basis of credit in every civilised country, and when you have done that I will put at your disposal, and at the disposal of our nationals who trade with you, all the machinery of trade credits, just as we put it at the disposal of our nationals who trade with other countries, but the condition precedent must be accepted."
Another point raised was the question of dyes. The course of the attack was twofold, first as regards administration, and second as regards the general policy. With regard to administration a picture was drawn which you might find, in one or two instances, bore some resemblance to the truth, but which bore no resemblance whatever to the ordinary course of administration which is pursued in hundreds of cases day in and day out. One would suppose, from the picture drawn, that an autocratic Department, totally ignorant of the industry, was of its own initiative administering the whole system of licences. Nothing of the kind. The whole of the licensing business is done by a Committee of which a very distinguished Member of this House, the hon. Member for Stretford (Sir T. Robinson) is the Chairman. On behalf of the Board of Trade, may I say how grateful I am for his untiring work in that capacity? The Committee consists of three makers of dyes, three members who are independent, and of five members who are themselves the users of the dyes, and of these three independent members one is a distinguished scientist and the other is the hon. Member for Stretford.
Then it is said that there is always an interminable delay, that licences applied for are held up day by day and month by month before the applicants can get them. I have heard that said before. So I have had a Return prepared and sent to me of the rapidity with which the applications for licences are disposed of. I have it here. In February, 73 per cent. were disposed of within two days of the application; in March 79 per cent.—

Mr. SIMPSON: How many of these were refused?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I can give those particulars. In February the total number of application was 562; 359 were granted and, of these, 340 were dealt with within one week. 94 were refused, of which 93 were dealt with within one week; 53 were referred to the Reparations Supply, and the whole of those were dealt with in one week. In March, 79 per cent. were dealt with within three days; in April, 82 per cent. within four days; and in the following month 89 per cent. within four days. That does not look much like delay. Then the hon. Gentleman said it is unfair for the merchants to have to give particulars. But it is most necessary that merchants should be made to give these particulars. After all, what is this Licensing Committee? Remember that on it the makers of the dyes are in the minority and the users in the majority. They want to be satisfied about the price; they want to be satisfied that the dye is necessary because the applicant who is going to use it cannot get a suitable British substitute. It is necessary to get some further particulars from the merchants, as otherwise he may propose to bring in tons of German dyes and sell them wholesale in this country. The merchant is required to prove two things. One is the price which will be charged to the consumer; the price to the merchant may be one thing and the price at which the merchant passes the article on to the buyer may be a totally different thing. Therefore this Licensing Committee requires to be satisfied, and quite rightly, as to the price to be charged to the man who is going to use the dye. They also want to know from the man who uses it and who has to sell his product what is the suitability of the dye for the purposes he requires it for. It is utterly unreasonable that we should be asked to deprive the user or the maker of these very necessary safeguards. The hon. Member referred to exports of undyed cloth, and I happened to see a speech by the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) in which he used the same argument which was criticised in the "Bradford Daily Argus," where it was pointed out that, though it is quite true there has been a large increase in the exports of undyed materials, in 1913,
immediately preceding the War, the exports of this character to India was 1,461,000,000 yards, and that in 1922 the figure was considerably below that. The right hon. and learned Gentleman quoted certain rises of 5,000,000 and 10,000,000, but he did not tell the House that the great bulk of the increase was due to getting back the pre-War Indian trade for Lancashire.
I want to come to the broad question of policy, because on that so much depends. I have no hesitation in saying that the value of the dye industry to the textile industry of this country is greater to-day than it ever was before. Just look at what has happened in the course of the last six months. We have had the occupation of the Ruhr, which has lessened the facilities for exports of dyes from the Continent, and it has been of the greatest advantage to have had a dye industry in this country. I know of one company which has been manufacturing day and night since the occupation of the Ruhr in order to supply the needs of the textile industry in this country and elsewhere. The textile trade, whether in Lancashire or Yorkshire, would have been in a very anxious position in the last six months if it had had to rely entirely on dyes coming from the Continent. Let the hon. Member note another fact. The position of the textile trade to-day is wholly different from what it was before the War. Before the War the textile trade enjoyed a predominance which was unique. Look at the exports of one industry in this country—an industry which, whether in times of trade boom or slump, has gone on steadily producing textile machinery, and that textile machinery has been going out of this country to be erected in competing markets. The trade of this industry has gone on increasing when every other trade has been bad. The increase has been constant and the manufacturers of textile machinery have been unable to keep up with the demand. The hon. Member will not suggest that the competition of the number of mills growing up all over the world—a number which is steadily increasing—is not an increasingly dangerous position which Lancashire has to face. It would be unwise to leave Lancashire at the mercy of a possible combination of foreign dye-makers and foreign mill
owners. Then the hon. Member said the dyes we are making are bad. I would like to quote to him the words of a person who ought to know, the chairman of the Colour Users' Association, who gave his testimony before the Manchester Chamber of Commerce and who, like Baalam, was called to curse and like Baalam remained to bless.

Mr. PRINGLE: Was it not the ass who did the cursing?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The hon. Member who comes from Scotland has a scriptural knowledge which almost disgraces mine. This authority said:
I would like to pay a sincere tribute of admiration to the makers for their undeviating progress in the production of dyestuffs in the past few years, not only in the extension of production, but in the definite improvement in quality which has become more and more apparent. The pre-War consumption of German and other foreign dyes was from 70 to 80 per cent. of the total; whereas last year we used from 70 to 80 per cent. of British dyes thus exactly reversing the position. We have been able to do that—to use 80 per cent. of British dyes where we used only 20 per cent. before, without in any way reducing our standard.
At a time when one wants to get British trade back, I hope the hon. Member will not go on publishing to the world this libel that British textiles are not fast in their dyes. Finally, there is the question of price. The hon. Member quoted prices for this and for that, but he quite forgot to tell the House what has been the common experience in case after case. It is this: that it was only when we made the dyes in this country that the German prices came down. If you give up making dyes here, do you suppose the German dyes will stay at their present low level? Of course they will not. As soon as the Germans again get the market, up will go their prices, and then what have you got for your own industry? You have no guarantee of any dyes at all. You have no guarantee that you will get them at reasonable prices. I do not think that that is likely to appeal to the common sense of the textile trade.
I now want to deal with another question which has been raised by two hon. Members—a rather complicated question—although a less contentious one, namely, the question of zinc concentrates. The facts about zinc concentrates are these. In Australia we have a contract which we are bound to carry through and under
which the British Government engages that up till 1930 we will take 300,000 tons of zinc concentrates every year, and 45,000 tons of refined zinc. We take the concentrates until 1925 at a fixed price; after that the price varies with the price of spelter. The refined zinc or spelter is to be taken at a price which carries a premium above the world price. It is in effect an obligation to pay a premium amounting to about £112,000 a year. I think the general feeling in the House, when this matter was last discussed, was that it was very desirable the Government should make some arrangement to secure that it would never have any of these concentrates left on its hands. I am glad to say we have been able to make a number of contracts under which, in the first place, the whole of the 300,000 tons a year will be taken. One hon. Member was very anxious that a large part should be secured, if possible, for Australia, and I think 150,000 tons a year—I am not quite certain of the quantity, but at any rate it is very large, will be taken by the company in Australia. We also have as part of this arrangement got rid of the obligation to pay for the delivery of spelter and to pay the premium. In return for that we are making an allowance in the price at which the zinc concentrates are taken. I do not think I need weary the House with further details of this. I shall be glad to give them to the hon. Member if he wishes for them. I think the House would wish to be satisfied as to the contracts, and we are advised that we have got the best terms obtainable which will definitely see us with the whole of the concentrates absorbed for the whole period of the contract.
The hon. Member referred to the trading account and to the loss incurred. I think he asked me what would happen in the future. I hope that in the future there will not be anything like the loss the Geddes Committee anticipated. I hope there will be little, if any, loss, but that inevitably will depend on the price of spelter. At the time when the trading account was made the price of spelter was very low, about £25 a ton, and on the stocks at that date there was a very considerable loss. After that the price of spelter rose to something like £35 a ton, and at that price the loss would be wiped out. At present prices the loss would be reduced by about £700,000.
Because the whole transaction must necessarily turn upon the price of spelter from time to time, it is impossible to say with certainty what will be the result of the transaction, but I think, from what I have said, the House may be satisfied that we have taken the most practical steps we can.

Mr. COLLISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is to become of the mines in this country that are now waterlogged?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am afraid I cannot give the hon. Gentleman satisfaction. What he really says is this: "This Government, or a Government, entered into a contract during the War with the Australian Government to take a large quantity of zinc concentrates at a fixed price. Having done that, will you now enter into a similar contract with the mine-owners of this country to take it from them?" I have no power to enter into any such contract, and I should certainly hesitate very much before coming to this House to ask it, because it had entered into the Australian contract, to enter into another contract which would involve the taxpayer in a further loss. I think the hon. Member is basing his case on a misconception. He is basing his case on the belief that it is the Australian contract which is keeping the mines closed. It is not. The spelter would have been there, the zinc concentrates would have been produced, whatever contract had been entered into. The thing which is making it impossible for the mines to work in the hon. Member's constituency is not the Australian contract, but the world price of zinc concentrates and the world price of lead, and there is no way out of that.

Mr. ADAMS: Is it not a fact that the price of spelter to-day is very much higher than any pre-War price for many years previously?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The spelter price is certainly higher than the pre-War price, but if the hon. Member is suggesting that to-day that price makes it profitable to work these mines, while I should like to give consolation to both the hon. Members, I am afraid they will not be satisfied with that, and the real thing is that the success or failure of
those mines must depend upon the world price.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Is it not a fact that you have said that the price you paid for spelter and zinc concentrates is so much per cent. of the world price, and that is the reason for the reduction of the production of those concentrates in Australia, and the increased price they get?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: It is the price of spelter that is above the world price. The price paid for concentrates is a fixed price, which works out at about £4 4s. 7d.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Plus freightage, £4.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The freight is not £4, but 37s. 9d. I do not think it is relevant. I am in a little difficulty about the other point with which I was asked to deal, namely, the question of trusts, not that I have any desire not to deal with it, but while hon. Members who addressed their inquiries to me said it was very desirable to take certain action, I am afraid it is perfectly plain that the action I am invited to take involves legislation, and I should be called to order by you, Sir, if I indicated that I either was or was not intending to introduce legislation. Therefore, obviously, with reference to the hon. Member for West Leeds (Mr. J. Murray), who said certain things were done under the Profiteering Act and asked why should they not be done now, the answer is that the Profiteering Act does not any longer exist, and I could not do anything like that without legislation. I should be debarred in this Debate from discussing whether or not legislation of that or any other character ought to be introduced.
I think I am right, however, while still keeping within order, in referring to the point raised by the hon. Baronet the Member for the Woodbridge Division (Sir A. Churchman), who raised the question of milk prices. I had the opportunity yesterday at the Board of Trade, together with a number of my colleagues, of meeting representatives of the producers and of the distributors who were referred to in Lord Linlithgow's Report, and we had a very full discussion upon that Report. While, obviously, it would be out of order now—nor am I prepared—to state
what action the Government will take on that Report, I should like to say at once that I think the United Dairies ought to reply very definitely to the case which is made in that Report, and the most acceptable reply that can be made to the Report would be a reduction in the price of milk. I am bound to say that despite all that I heard at the conference yesterday, unless very strong evidence disproving it is forthcoming, where there is a margin of 1s. between the wholesale and retail costs, when I find that in Glasgow, for instance, the distribution costs are not 9d. but 5½d., then I think that very strong evidence will be required to show that that company is not in a position to sell milk cheaper to the consumer in the coming winter months than was done in the course of the past winter. I think I have now dealt with all the points which were raised in the course of the Debate.

Mr. SHINWELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the question of belated reparation claims to which reference has been made?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: If there is an opportunity later in the Debate, I should like my Noble Friend to deal with that at rather more length than I have time to do now; but I would say this, that as the hon. Member knows, in this matter the Board of Trade is really the secretariat and the pay office of the Royal Commission. A decision as to what claims should rank, and how they should be assessed, is entirely in the hands of the Commission, but the hon. Gentleman may be sure that all claims that have been submitted to the Board will be put forward to the Commission for their full consideration. Both I and my Noble Friend, with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, have been in close touch with the Commission as to their consideration of these claims, but it would be impossible for me to give an undertaking as to the course the Commission may follow.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: What is going to be the position of the Board of Trade with regard to bread?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The hon. Member was extraordinarily discreet in that matter. He said he would like to know what I was going to do to rectify the situation. I said last night what I could in this matter, and we put in the Expiring
Laws Continuance Bill a continuation of the Order; but he must not ask me now whether I am going to introduce a Bill.

Sir C. BURN: What is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to do for the Brixham fishermen?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: That also is a matter for the Royal Commission. I cannot give them any instructions whether they should admit claims of that kind or not. It must be a matter for them to decide.

Sir G. COLLINS: The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade asked what would happen if the Dyestuffs Act had not been passed. Let me remind him that the colour users throughout the country before the War did not suffer the same difficulties that they are suffering to-day through the interference by a Government Department in their trade. The right hon. Gentleman also dealt with the question of price. Let me remind him that the price of dyestuffs to-day is some 300 to 400 per cent. higher than in pre-War times, and raw material which was used in our textile factories does not come up in any way to that large increase of price. Therefore, we submit that the administration of that Act has been faulty, so placing an undue burden upon the textile trade, and is a direct handicap to British trade in different parts of the world. But I have risen now to note the new spirit and the new tone of the President of the Board of Trade regarding our European trade. What a marked contrast to his speeches during the first few months of the year! In the early months of this year, many hon. Friends of mine raised the subject of the handicap to British trade through the conditions existing in the Ruhr Valley. The President of the Board of Trade turned a deaf ear to us on those occasions, and he disagreed entirely with the facts which we submitted. On 12th April, after summing up the Debate on behalf of the Government, the President of the Board of Trade said:
On these facts I still assert that the onus of holding up British trade in the occupied territory to-day rests on the German Government and not on the French Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th April, 1923; col. 1392, Vol. 162.]
Is that the attitude taken up this afternoon?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The hon. Gentleman was asking me particularly a question dealing with pre-occupation contracts. At that moment the French had agreed to the issue of licences.

8.0 P.M.

Sir G. COLLINS: It is a much wider issue than pre-occupation contracts. The case I brought up referred to pre-occupation contracts. The case put before him by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. F. Gray) and the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) referred to present contracts entered into after France occupied the Ruhr and dealt with far more than pre-War contracts. Later on in that speech, the President of the Board of Trade used these words:
The thing which is stopping trade is that the German Government are refusing to allow their nationals to export even under contract.
What a difference the last three months has made in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman. I had sveral occasions during the earlier months of this year to invite his assistance. I do so again this afternoon. I have several cases here where British trade is being handicapped and where British traders are unable to get export licences for their goods from the Ruhr Valley. I will send him these cases, but we have often during the past few months invited the assistance of the President of the Board of Trade on behalf of British traders, and we have not up till now received any satisfaction. He has, I say deliberately from my place in the House of Commons, neglected British trade in this matter, and there is to-day unemployment up and down in the country, because the President of the Board of Trade has not yet brought the whole force of his Department to bear on the French authorities in the Ruhr to protect the vital interests of British trade. Le me give three cases. The first is the case of a contract entered into before the French occupied the Ruhr, on the 12th of December, 1922, for 400 tons of creosote oil. The oil is lying at Duisburg and the firm are unable to-day to obtain an export licence and have not yet received delivery of the goods.
During a recent visit to the Ruhr I came across many British traders who are spending time and money trying to
get export licences from the French authorities. They are passed from one town to another. I have this on very good authority. Some of them are Canadians, some are Scotsmen, some are Englishmen, and they are passed to and from one town to another, from one department to another, meeting difficulties which are created definitely with the object of frustrating German trade and bringing Germany to her knees. That is a matter I will not touch upon. Here is another case I can give him. I will pass it to the right hon. Gentleman, and he can investigate it.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I always deal with the cases which are sent to me.

Sir G. COLLINS: I have often on previous occasions brought to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman cases from reliable quarters, from my constituents, and from individuals who have given me the information.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that he has sent me particulars of cases and that I have done nothing? All I can say is that in the last six months I have tried to get arrangements made in all cases brought before me. I have never failed to attend to a single case. If there are any cases which have not been carried out, I will be very glad to deal with them. My information is that they are all carried out.

Sir G. COLLINS: I have given the right hon. Gentleman one case, and I will give him another case of a contract entered into before the French occupation for 20 tons of carbolic acid crystals and 40 tons of cresylic acid. These have been lying at Ludwigshafen since November last, and the firm have only now received the export licence. All the efforts of the right hon. Gentleman have only resulted, in the case of this contract entered into last November, in the firm receiving the export licence after eight months. This firm says that it is still very uncertain whether they will be able to move the goods from the occupied territory. I will give another case. On the 5th of December this firm shipped 50 barrels of crude carbolic acid from England by the Holland Steamship Company for transhipment at Amsterdam for Ludwigshafen. The shipment was stopped by the French at Duisburg. The firm say that "since then we
have been unable to obtain delivery or permission to move the parcel in any way." I will hand this information to the right hon. Gentleman, and I sincerely trust that not only in his own Department in London but, what is even more important, that at Cologne, at Coblenz; at Essen, and at Dusseldorf the British representatives will have the instructions of His Majesty's Government to use the whole persuasive power of the British Government to clear British goods at the very earliest possible moment. The right hon. Gentleman will say that he has done all that he could. It may be so, but if he would in August, or at any time during the recess, pay a visit to the Ruhr Valley and come in contact with the traders who have been spending weeks, costing them large sums of money, in endeavouring to obtain licences for their goods which are required in this country, then I think he could come to this House and say that during the time he was President of his Department he had watched over British trade abroad. However, we say decisively that we note with pleasure his new tone this afternoon, that British trade is dependent upon a stable Continent. Many a time during the last 12 or 18 months the President of the Board of Trade has pointed out that if we suffered on the Continent we could trade with the Empire beyond the seas. Even the Federation of British Industries in a recent memorial pointed out that many factories throughout the country are dependent upon a stable Continent to find employment for our people, and, although we welcome every attempt to secure an increase of trade by the development of our Empire overseas, we are convinced that until a stable Continent is secured there cannot be a great increase of employment in this country.

Mr. HARDIE: I would like to ask the President of the Board of Trade a question regarding dyes. I wish to ask if it is a fact that when war ceased the dye users in this country bought what would be equal to £7,000,000 worth of dyes, and that what we are suffering from now is the fact that the small users have to go to those who hold the dyes to get small quantities?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: There may have been a purchase. I do not think it was so great as £7,000,000 worth.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I have listened to many remarkable speeches in this House, but I have never listened to a more remarkable speech than the one the right hon. Gentleman has just delivered from the Government Bench. He has painted an exceedingly gloomy picture of trade and employment prospects in this country. He resembles Cassandra running through the streets of Rome crying, "Woe and havoc." He has told us that he has been in touch with the authorities in the banking and industrial world and in all walks of industry, and that the prospects are exceedingly gloomy so far as the coming winter is concerned. That is a very remarkable and grave statement to make, because, as far as we can gather, the President of the Board of Trade and his colleagues in the Government are making really no preparation for dealing with the situation. So far as we can gather, no advance preparations are in hand. We have over 1,000,000 unemployed, and if they are to be added to in the coming winter to the extent indicated by the right hon. Gentleman, then we are in a very parlous situation, indeed. I confess that, so far as I am concerned, I should exhibit very little sympathy for the capitalist classes of this country in the ruin that faces them, if it were not for the fact that their undoing would cause so much suffering and sorrow to the mass of the people. The policies that have brought us to this pass are the policies of the Gentlemen on the Government Benches.

Mr. HOHLER: On your side, too.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Not on our side. We have never initiated any policy at all.

Mr. HOHLER: What about strikes?

Mr. WALLHEAD: Strikes have nothing whatever to do with it. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has told us that our situation to-day is due to the situation in Europe. That has come about by policies which have come from the Government side of the House. Four years ago some Gentlemen who now sit on the other side of the House were enunciating their policies. I would like to know when any one of them, prominent in business, or banking, or finance, told the unfortunate people of
this country what the results of their policies would be. No one, in the shipping trade, in the coal trade, in the cotton or the wool trade, raised any voice of warning. The results of their policies in Europe have been devastation, ruin, bankruptcy, and misery, for the masses of the people, and it also faces them now. I say again that, were it not for the fact that it is the mass of the people at the bottom who have to suffer for your lamentable mistakes, your colossal ignorance and your boundless incapacity, I should have no sympathy whatever for you in the straits and difficulties in which you find yourselves at the present moment.

The CHAIRMAN: I am not sure that I follow the argument of the hon. Member, but it seems to me that his remarks ought really to be directed to the Foreign Office. I do not see how the President of the Board of Trade can be held responsible individually for European policy.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I was really following the speech delivered by the President of the Board of Trade himself, which had a great deal to do with the whole European situation. It is almost impossible to disentangle, from the statement which he made, those parts of it which strictly belong to the work of his Department. But I will come to another point. The right hon. Gentleman was dealing with the Lancashire cotton trade and was complaining that it was in a bad way, that the whole trade was suffering, and that we were face to face with foreign competition. It was suggested that the only trade that had escaped this disaster was the machinery-producing industry which has been exceedingly busy producing goods for export. The textile machinery industry had been the only stable industry in the Lancashire towns. But it is all very well to tell us that we are face to face with foreign competition. Let us clearly understand that a good deal of that foreign competition has been financed by British capital. For instance, Poland enters into competition with our textile trade in Yorkshire, but it is British capitalists who have bought up the mills of Poland and are using the cheap labour of the Poles in competition with the cotton workers in Yorkshire. The same is true of the
Lancashire cotton trade. It is perfectly true that we hear of foreign competition, but a great deal of the machinery that is being laid down, even in India and Japan, is furnished by capital that was originally raised out of the labour of the Lancashire cotton operative, who is now forced to suffer on account of this foreign competition. He suffers in reduced wages and loss of employment; but the British capitalists still draw their dividends, and whether these dividends are obtained from Great Britain or from India, Japan or some Eastern dependency will matter very little to him. So far as he is concerned it makes no difference where the money comes from. These are points that have to be borne in mind.
To my mind the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was a confession of failure on the part of the Department to which he is attached. Now they have suddenly awakened to tell us that the development of the Empire does not settle the problem for us at all. We have been talked at for the last seven or eight months on this matter, and told that what we wanted was Empire development. We are now told by the President of the Board of Trade that Empire development is quite inadequate, and that we must go back to a suitable policy in Europe in order to stabilise European affairs and to get back our old customers. This is a question which concerns both the President of the Board of Trade and his colleagues at the Foreign Office.
The right hon. Gentleman made some play with the question of trade with Russia. Everyone now realises that trade with Russia is not going to settle the problems that confront us, and that, even if we did begin to trade with Russia, we have put off renewal of that trade for so long that little benefit can be expected in that quarter in the immediate future. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned an order for 2,000 locomotives that went to Sweden. I was in Russia at the time when that order was placed. I was in the company of my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw), and he can corroborate what I say. Undoubtedly in 1920, at the time when that order for locomotives was placed, the Russian Soviet Government would have been only too pleased to open friendly relations with this country, and that order might
have come here to have been carried out in our Yorkshire shops instead of going to Sweden. We had this information supplied to us in Petrograd and in Moscow itself when I was there. Instead of the Government doing everything they could to develop our trade and industry and to meet the undoubted slump which they ought to have known was going to occur, they did not realise at that moment that there was any such need.
I have been in Reval, and there I met the representative of a great engineering firm in this country who was running round Royal. He was in a country with no credit, with little population, and with no facilities for buying, in an attempt to get orders for machinery, while just over the border there was a nation hungry for the things that we could send them, hankering for our goods. The reason why we did not trade with them was, forsooth, that after fighting a war for the rights of peoples to settle their own form of government, we did not approve of the form of government which they had chosen, and desired them to have another. This is the basis of the whole Russian problem. It is not merely a question of recognising the Debt. It is very probable that you have lost in the past, are losing now, and will lose in the future, infinitely more through loss of trade than the whole of your blessed debts are worth, so far as Russia is concerned.
I want to come to another question with which the right hon. Gentleman has not dealt. I refer to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander). On Monday we were discussing here the need for the maintenance and continuation of a system that led to private initiative and private enterprise. My hon. Friend, the Member for Hillsborough, in a very lucid and able speech, gave point after point to show that it is known even to the Board of Trade what limitations are placed upon competition in various trades in this country. It is well known to Government Departments, although the right hon. Gentleman has not been able to reply, or, at any rate, has failed to reply. Hon. Members who sit on the Government Benches, who are so keen about competition and who desire so much to see competition maintained, might at least have said something against the trust system that confronts us in this country. I sup-
pose they are too closely linked up with trusts and combines, and believe so firmly in trusts and combines, that they prefer to be silent so far as that mattr is concerned. Certainly none of them raised that question or attempted to discuss it. I should have thought that we ought to have some answer on this question of trusts.
I want to put a question to the representative of the Board of Trade. I want to ask him, with regard to this question of trusts and with regard to the possibility of legislation, whether it is true to say that the Board of Trade early in 1921 had a Bill in draft and obtained from the Standing Committee on Trusts, which was a Committee of the Profiteering Committee, a considered opinion upon that Bill. I want to know whether that Bill was drafted by the Board of Trade, and I want to know why it was that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) did not go on with it. I should like to know what malign influence was at work to keep that Bill from being introduced into Parliament. After all, these are very important questions, and I should really like to know what are the powers behind the throne that prevented the Board of Trade itself from carrying through this legislation and putting the Bill into operation after they had asked the opinion of the Standing Committee on Trusts. That is a question of which it might interest the House to hear an answer from the President of the Board of Trade. It would be interesting to kow, for instance, what influence was brought to bear by the Federation of British Industries, and in what way they operated to prevent this Measure from becoming law.
There is another question to which the President of the Board of Trade refused, or at any rate failed, to provide an answer—the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough as to the treatment of the co-operative societies by his Department. I think the hon. Member for Hillsborough is an optimist. When he seeks for equal treatment by the Board of Trade he is open to somewhat adverse criticism, because his experience ought by now to have proved to him that the biggest enemies of the co-operative societies are on the Government Benches, and perhaps not only on the Front Bench, but on the benches behind.
He was asking for consideration for the co-operative societies. I should advise the co-operative societies to look for no help whatever from the present Government. I do not know what other Governments may do, but probably like this one they will do nothing but hamper, and hinder and retard! There was a question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough, and it has had no answer up till now.
So far as this trust question is concerned I want to say this: I do not believe that either the Board of Trade or the Government can deal with the trusts. They are inherent in the competitive system. You cannot avoid them. Every competitor is a monopolist at heart. He believes that if he can destroy his competitors then he will establish a monopoly, and the moment he gets the power he does that. So far as the Government actually is concerned, we have had a speech by the President of the Board of Trade and the implications of that speech are not only a breakdown of the Government's own foreign policy, but the future that awaits us in the coming winter months. In view of that I feel it should be impressed upon the President of the Board of Trade that he should bring this question to the notice of his colleagues in the Cabinet, and insist that they begin to Prepare here and now for the dreadful time looming ahead. Otherwise when the consequences of the lack of policy present themselves next winter it will be no use turning round and blaming the victims if they begin to protest in a very peculiar way. The blame will rest entirely on the Government who, with full warning and full knowledge of the conditions that are coming, are failing so far as I can see to take any adequate steps to deal with the situation.

Mr. F. GRAY: I desire to refer to two matters in regard to the German Reparation (Recovery) Act, 1921. I have been asked to bring before the Committee the position of the retail booksellers of this country. I do not think I shall discharge my duty in a quicker way than by detailing to the Committee the transactions that take place when there is an importation of books into this country from Germany, and the claim comes in of the English Government under the German Reparations (Recovery) Act. An English retail bookseller receives an order from a
customer to get a German book. He naturally writes to Germany and has all the incidence of postal expenses. It must be remembered that the books that are being imported are books printed in the German language, and deal with subjects that are—

The CHAIRMAN: How does the hon. Gentleman connect that subject with the Vote under consideration?

Mr. GRAY: In Class II under Vote 9, which deals with the Reparation Claims Department.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that covers the particular matter to which the hon. Gentleman is referring.

Viscount WOLMER: The Reparation Claims Department has nothing whatever to do with this matter.

Mr. GRAY: Except this—of course, Mr. Hope, I very gladly bow to your ruling—but I am advised that the sum which is received in the circumstances which I was about to detail to the Committee, are paid into the fund in relief of the expenses which are dealt with in this Vote. If I am correct, I submit that I am in order.

Viscount WOLMER: The hon. Gentleman makes a mistake in bringing this under the head of reparations.

The CHAIRMAN: There is no return here as an Appropriation-in-Aid of the expenses of the Board of Trade.

Viscount WOLMER: As I understand it, this does not come under the Board of Trade.

Mr. GRAY: Do I understand the Noble Lord in charge of the Vote to say that the Customs Department comes under the Treasury, and not for this purpose under the Board of Trade?

Viscount WOLMER: No, it does not come under the Board of Trade.

Mr. GRAY: In a case such as this, where money is received from the Customs Department and goes to a special fund for the relief of the expenses of the Board of Trade, I should have thought that that brought it under this Vote?

Viscount WOLMER: No, surely the hon. Member knows that, whatever happens, this money does not reach the Board of Trade.

The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member can show an item under Appropriations-in-Aid arising out of this transaction, that would make him in order, but this appears to be a matter of Customs administration and of the Customs Department.

Mr. GRAY: I may remind you, Mr. Hope, that this matter was raised on the question of the duty of 26 per cent. payable under this Act? The Debate, it will be remembered, took place on 12th April last, and this matter was dealt with by the President of the Board of Trade. I have here a report of his speech. The President dealt expressly with this matter.

The CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. Gentleman read the relevant parts of that speech?

Mr. GRAY: I would remind the Committee that on 12th April my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) raised the question of the Ruhr receipts and the loss to the revenue in respect of this 26 per cent. duty under the German Reparation (Recovery) Act. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith spoke, and I spoke, and a reply was given by the President of the Board of Trade. I was proposing to quote the words later in my speech to-night used by the President of the Board of Trade on that occasion.

The CHAIRMAN: What was the subject before the House then?

Mr. GRAY: The subject before the House then was goods under contract from the Ruhr to this country were being held up, rightly or wrongly, by the French Government, and we were urging upon the notice of this House that the result of that was not only loss to the traders of this country, but that under this Act we lost the 26 per cent. of the value of the goods that should have been received, and were held up.

Viscount WOLMER: The hon. Gentleman, as I understand him, wants to discuss an Act which is administered by the Customs, over which the Board of Trade has no control, and for that reason I do not think it comes under this Vote.

The CHAIRMAN: It is the 26 per cent. Customs Duty administered by the Customs, and that is a matter for the Treasury. If the hon. Member can show that the Board of Trade received, appropriations-in-aid on account of this matter, it will be in order, but it seems to me to be merely a Customs matter, as far as I can understand it.

Mr. GRAY: Then I will not press that point, and I will continue with my second argument. I would like to know if I shall be in order in referring to goods which we desire to import into this country from the Ruhr district which were held up on the occupation of that district by the French, and which was the precise matter which was debated, and of which the President of the Board of Trade was in charge? What I desire to call attention to is that upon that occasion we complained that goods were being held up by the French Government, and it was alleged by the British Government that the German Government were no less responsible, and that these goods were being held up notwithstanding the fact that they were contracted to be sold to this country prior to the occupation by the French, and they were goods which the French themselves agreed should be sent to this country.
I believe I am right in saying that there is an Amendment before the House to reduce this vote by £100, and I submit that it is amply justified on the ground that in February, March and April, when this particular Debate took place, I and other hon. Members urged first upon the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and then upon the President of the Board of Trade that they should use their influence to protect British traders and importers and make representations to the French Government to get these goods out of the Ruhr district in pursuance of the contract. That has been repeatedly urged on the President of the Board of Trade. There are to this day large quantities of goods contracted to be sold to this country before the occupation by the French which British merchants have never been able to obtain. I appealed to the right hon. Gentleman in May to assist us in getting those goods. The goods in which I was particularly interested, amounting to some four trucks, I am glad to say, have been received in this country.

Viscount WOLMER: Hear, hear!

Mr. GRAY: The Noble Lord says, "Hear, hear!" but those goods have been received here through no service rendered by the Board of Trade, and no thanks are due to that Department from all those persons who relied upon the Board of Trade, as I did myself, for four months. The persons in whom I am interested secured the goods by sending out a youth from this country who, by a process of distributing ten shillings here and there, and by bribery and corruption, managed to get the goods across the frontier, and he had to use a French engine, for which he was charged by the French Government.

Mr. BECKER: Does the hon. Member suggest that British officials in this area were being bribed by ten shilling notes?

Mr. GRAY: I am making no such suggestion. I must remind the hon. Member that there are no British officials in that district, nor does the King's Writ run in that area. On the contrary, I was pointing out that nobody held a less influential position in that district than the President of the Board of Trade and the British Government. I was emphasising that there was a duty which the President of the Board of Trade owed to those British traders which he failed to discharge, and they were left to go out and get the goods themselves because the British Government failed to safeguard and protect their interests. There was a reason for that. The President of the Board of Trade throughout insisted upon two things. First, that it was not the intention of the French Government to injure British trade, and, more amazing still, that British trade was not in fact injured by the French occupation of the Ruhr.
To-day I was amazed when I heard the President of the Board of Trade open his speech with elementary platitudes about international economics, words which I believe I am right in saying have been taken from an Oxford Professor's books on economics. I am indeed gratified that the President of the Board of Trade has at last learned those elementary economics, and that he has, in reply to the unanswerable facts put forward by the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Hope Simpson), had to quote elementary platitudes which he has learned since he made
the speech in this House on the 12th April. The right hon. Gentleman on that occasion was very severe in his reply to me when I suggested that it was in fact the intention of the French to injure our trade in the Ruhr. He said this:
The whole suggestion made by the speech of the hon. Member for Oxford was that it was the intention of the French to damage our trade—
Mr. GRAY: In the Ruhr.
Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: —to damage our trade in the Ruhr, but I repudiate that absolutely."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th April, 1923; cols. 1389 and 1390, Vol. 162.]
I understand the President of the Board of Trade has won considerable repute in commercial circles in the past, and I think it is absolutely beautiful that a man who has gone through the rough and tumble of commerce should retain this child-like simplicity about the acts of others in commerce. But the right hon. Gentleman must give the French credit for common sense. It is always wise to give other Governments credit for sound, common sense. Does he really suppose that the French occupied the Ruhr for the purpose of maintaining and increasing the trade between that area and England? Holding the views they do, obviously it was for them to hamper German trade in every direction, except the direction which resulted in the transfer of goods from the Ruhr to France. For the President of the Board of Trade to suggest that they desired to maintain the trade then existing between the Ruhr and England is not giving the French credit for common sense, but it indicates, as I say, a beautiful and child-like view of life in general and of commerce.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: In particular.

Mr. GRAY: I do not know if it is open to me to refer to the loss of trade by the closing of the usual channels since the occupation, which is now admitted by the President of the Board of Trade. I do not think it would be fair to suggest that the President of the Board of Trade is responsible for that. I think it is a fair and legitimate criticism, however, to say that in respect of the large bulk of goods held in the Ruhr district at the time of the occupation for consignment to England—which the French, apart from a dispute between the 1st and the 20th January, were prepared to allow to be removed to England—there has been a
failure to achieve what could be achieved in the way I have suggested, and the Board of Trade has failed throughout those months to assist the British trader in securing the export of these goods. The goods have not yet been received in all cases and the British trader has nowhere to look for compensation for the serious loss he has sustained by the holding up of these goods from February up to the present time and, as it may yet prove to be, for a much longer period.

Mr. HOHLER: The hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Gray) has addressed the Committee in most impressive style, but I confess I did not fully appreciate exactly what were the goods which he described as having been held up and the release of which, I gathered from him, was secured by means of a 10s. note. I cannot conceive what that has to do with the present Vote, and it is strange to me if it is part of the duty of the President of the Board of Trade, or any of his officials, to exercise any influence by means of bribes upon officials abroad.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think the hon. Member suggested that exactly. I presume the contention was that the persuasive powers of the President of the Board of Trade might have obtained the release of these goods without compelling resort to the methods described by the hon. Member.

Mr. HOHLER: That certainly was not made clear to me nor, I think, to other hon. Members. We were also told that the French, by going into the Ruhr, did not facilitate German trade with us. I assume that is perfectly true. The French went there for their own purposes, and their occupation of that area had nothing to do with facilitating our trade, and indeed it was, I suppose, inevitable that it should have damaged that trade. I deprecate the speech of the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Wallhead). He seemed to suggest that there was one solution for every trade trouble, and that was Socialism. We had the old story over again about trading with the Soviet Government. I gathered from the hon. Member's statement that we, in this country, could have obtained an order for the manufacture of engines which ultimately went to Sweden. I think I have seen a statement under the hon. Member's own hand indicating that he was
persona grata with those at the head of the Russian revolution. If he could have obtained this trade for us, why on earth did he not do so? I presume the hon. Member's theory is that we should trade with Soviet Russia.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it in order for the hon. Member to travesty the speech of the hon. Member for Merthyr who never said anything about getting this order himself, but only referred to the order being obtainable by this country?

The CHAIRMAN: I did not understand that any innuendo against the personal motives of the hon. Member for Merthyr was suggested, but unfortunately we seem to have got on to the question of Socialism, and as Socialism would involve legislation it is not therefore in order.

Mr. HOHLER: I made no implication against the hon. Member for Merthyr. I only expressed a view that if the order could have been obtained for this country the hon. Member would have been a very suitable person to obtain it. Apparently he did not do so. As you say, Sir, Socialism would certainly involve legislation—at least, I suppose so—and I was only seeking to reply to the remarks which the hon. Member for Merthyr addressed to hon. Members both on this side of the House and below the Gangway on the other side of the House. I now turn to a matter in this Vote on which I should like my Noble Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to give me some information. I find under the heading of "Services arising out of the War" a considerable expenditure, and I find that there is still a Royal Commission on Wheat Supplies, representing an expenditure of some £6,000. I thought that Commission had long since ceased to operate, and I had hoped that we had realised all the wheat we ever contracted for and that our contracts were all fulfilled. In these times, when economy should be exercised, it is curious to find that we are still being charged with this sum for this service. Would my Noble Friend also tell me what we are likely to realise on it, because I cannot find any suggested Appropriations-in-Aid as a result of what the Commission is supposed to be doing.
The next thing about which I wish to have some information is the item in respect of the Clearing Office (Enemy Debts). Would the Noble Lord tell us how that is proceeding, what real progress is being made, and how far the debts due to this country have been discharged? Here, again, the expenditure is very considerable, and, indeed, seems to be very little less than it was last year. Is there any prospect of this expenditure coming to an end? The War has been over for a long time, but it seems to me that it is proposed to continue this establishment until the end of this year, without, as far as I can see, any sign of diminution. Indeed, if the Estimate is correct, it looks to me as though this Department will be in existence next year. In fact, it seems to be interminable, and the amount expended under this head is £320,000 odd. I would ask the Noble Lord to give us some explanation and some satisfactory assurance as to the progress that is being made. How is it that this large expenditure is incurred, and can he hold out a prospect—I do not ask for a pledge—that at the end of this year it will come to an end? I cannot help thinking that there must be some very soft billets here that might be got rid of.
Again, in the case of the Reparation Claims Department, there is a considerable expenditure of some £27,000 odd. What are these reparation claims? Surely, if they are claims for properties taken by the Government, they are all dealt with by the Commission. Under the Act which confirmed the right to receive payment of money on such claims, you had to go before the Commission to establish your claim. What is this Department really doing? What is the nature of the claims? We get no indication of that on this Vote. I see that there is a controller at £1,000 a year, a legal adviser at £600, and a number of other persons. It really seems to me that we are losing sight of the fact that we ought to have got through these difficulties, seeing that it is more than five years since the War terminated. All these matters ought to be very carefully examined.
The next thing to which I want to refer is the Timber Disposal Department. It is true that here the sum is not a large one—a matter of £3,000—but what is the
timber that is not yet disposed of? I should have thought that His Majesty's Government had long since got rid of it, and I cannot see why all these gentlemen should be kept on this list. I have no objection to their drawing the dole, but, although I see that the acting controller has disappeared, there remains an accountant at £800 a year. Could the Noble Lord give us any idea of the value of this timber? I think I am right in saying that there is no Appropriation-in-Aid to be found in respect of this. If there is no timber to sell, let us know it, and let us know why we are keeping these gentlemen. No doubt they are nice billets, but I think the money could be more usefully employed elsewhere.

9.0 P.M.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Give it to me.

Mr. HOHLER: Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to give it to my hon. and gallant Friend, and I am sure there is no one who would be more worthy of it. Indeed, I would rather like one of these appointments myself, and I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend would. Under this head, there is a matter which I really cannot understand, namely, the provincial staff. What does that mean? I do not know whether they have ceased to be, but perhaps that is so. It may be that these entries refer to last year. I should have thought that, if the Government or the Board of Trade had timber to dispose of, it could be disposed of over and over again with the greatest ease. As far as I can judge, they appear to be holding it on a falling market, for timber is one of the few things that have got cheaper in the years since the War. There is another thing I cannot understand, namely, the War Insurance Accounts Branch. What is that doing now? I see that there are a clerk and two copying typists, and also contributions in respect of Health and Unemployment Insurance. What on earth are they doing now? Surely all these policies have long since come to an end. The risk has been incurred, and either losses have been sustained or nothing has been payable under the policies. I should like the Noble Lord to explain what is the meaning of that branch. Surely, if the underwriters were liable, they have long since paid up, and the money has been
appropriated in aid and received by the Government, but here we find that a matter alleged to be in connection with the War is still proceeding, and the only reduction that I can see, as compared with last year, is that the clerks have been reduced by £100, and that the allowance to officers from other Departments has disappeared. Otherwise, the amount remains the same as last year.
Again, what is the meaning of Item P 8—Diverted Cargoes (Cotton)? I see that there is an estimated further expenditure of £40,000 in connection with the diversion during the War to United Kingdom ports of certain cotton cargoes, but I thought we had got through all this War expenditure and all the difficulties and complications arising from it. How is it that this has been overlooked, and now appears on the Estimate? Last year the estimated sum was £150,000. It really seems as though these Estimates have been prepared on the basis of breaking to us gently what we have to pay—that it cannot be all charged this year, and, therefore, something is being carried over to another year; and it would seem that, for that very useless purpose, these staffs are being kept alive in order to look after these funds, wherever they are. What, also, is meant by the next item—Reparation Dyes? The sum involved here is £99,000, and the note is as follows:
Under the terms of the Treaty of Peace with Germany, approximately 3,000 tons of dyes may be received for sale in this country during 1923–24, and will be sold at prices sufficient to cover costs of distribution, which are estimated as follows.
Then come the various items of remuneration to agents, del credere commission, and allowance towards transport, handling, and so on. Are we going to receive those dyes, and, if we receive them, are we going to get more than is debited to this country in these Estimates? If not, will the whole of this sum be taken as an Appropriation-in-Aid of the Board of Trade Vote? In my judgment, the sum of £90,000 for this purpose is very considerable indeed. I think it is time the Government, and every Department of the Government, should have clearly impressed upon their minds that this Committee and the country are very impatient of this long-delayed settling of claims and obligations.

Sir W. RAEBURN: The law's delays.

Mr. HOHLER: No I cannot see that, because the difficulty is that you have very little resource against the Government. Take the policy of insurance. If that was the question of litigation it would at once pass to the Solicitors for the Treasury and there would be no reason for keeping the staff going. You cannot suggest that the sale of timber has anything to do with the law's delays or else my hon. Friend has very little notion of what the law really is. I am satisfied that the country is very impatient and the Government is keeping a Department going which, in my judgment, should have been wound up long since.

Mr. HARDIE: The President of the Board of Trade made a very clear point when he said that trade was not as good to-day as it was last December. But while he was able to make that statement from the returns which are always to his hand, he never gave a sentence which explained why that condition had been reached or the slightest indication as to how we might improve. He spoke largely about the foreign market—so largely that one might easily conclude that all the people in Britain would require to sit down and die quietly if there were no foreign markets. He never for a moment discussed the possibility of developing markets at home. The whole trend of his speech was something abroad, and he remarked because I smiled. Why cannot a man smile at the idea that, because you are not doing something with someone thousands of miles away, you have to sit down and die? Suppose for a moment that every other country we are trading with is able to produce what we have been trading with those countries. It has happened with a great many countries already. Does it mean, because other countries advance in producing things we make, that we have necessarily got to face starvation? Surely the President of the Board of Trade cannot ignore the fact that Japan, which only a few years ago depended entirely upon this country and Germany for everything in industrial machinery and the building of ships, stands as far advanced as Great Britain. That is bound to go on because all these nations are advancing, and if you multiply that, what is the outlook of Britain? There is no use saying, "Why talk about that now? There
is plenty of time." There is no time. Why should we not be a nation within ourselves? Why should our existence be dependent upon outside countries? I should like the President of the Board of Trade to be able to give some reply to an argument of that kind. If we are losing our markets, as we are, we are bound as a nation, instead of following the old traditional method of looking away towards some place where we can dump, to make our nation as self-supporting as it can be. He spoke then of getting back our industrial position. We can never get back our industrial position as it was because of the facts I have stated. The question of Russian locomotives came up. At one time locomotives of that quality were only built in Britain. Then followed the introduction of German competition. Those were the only two sources so far as supplying locomotives was concerned, but to-day you have all these other countries advancing and being able to take the work they used to give to us. What, then, is the President of the Board of Trade going to do? What is his solution? What are we to do in face of the fact that such things are taking place, that our trade is going, not because we cannot produce anything, not because we cannot produce more than we did before, but for the other reasons that I have stated?
I notice that the President of the Board of Trade when dealing with a general question always neglects what is the real kernel of industry, and that is power. We are shown in these pages a sum of money being spent under a Department called the Petroleum Department, and if we have a Petroleum Department under the Board of Trade we should expect to get some information with regard to petroleum. Yet, in answer to a question, the President of the Board of Trade on 19th June gave figures as to the increase in the importation of petrol, and while he was dealing with shipping to-day in the ordinary Board of Trade crystallised phrases he went on to glide over the essential facts. We have other countries to face in this question of carriage, and the Board of Trade is largely concerned with shipping, and we ought as a nation to be keeping our place in shipping, if for nothing else, because we have special occasion for it. If we take the power with regard to ships, we find that in 1914 there was 7.95 sail power, and in 1922 that was
reduced to 4.70. Oil used in internal-combustion engines of ships amounted in 1914 to ..47, whereas in 1922 it was 2.35. Oil fuel used in ships for raising steam to drive engines amounted in 1914 to 2.62 and in 1922 to 22.34. A big increase, and yet there is not a single word in this House from the Board of Trade as to our absolute dependence on supplies outside this nation, in face of the increased use of that fuel. Just as we increase the use of that class of liquid fuel on board our ships, and neglect to produce that fuel inside our nation, so much more do we become dependent on outside sources, and so much more difficult will it be for our shipping if this nation gets into difficulties, such as war. In 1914, the coal that was used in ships was 88.96, whereas in 1922 it fell to 70.61. We are a great nation trying, on the one hand, to keep in advance of science, while on the other hand, because of vested interests, we are not manufacturing fuel, which would not only give us independence, but an absolute reduction in price.

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: Will the hon. Member tell us where, commercially, it is possible to produce oil in this country, either from shale or in any other way?

Mr. HARDIE: It is quite a simple thing to do.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must in some way connect this with the powers of the Board of Trade, to show that they are preventing it, or that they could by administrative action cause its manufacture.

Mr. HARDIE: I hold that I am in order in stating that the Board of Trade gives its bias and its influence to something that is coming from outside the nation, but if it comes to a question as to my being in order, I can give the reply to the President of the Board of Trade to questions that I have been putting, with this thing fully in view. Just as the Board of Trade gives its permission to an increase in the number of horse-power being transferred from coal to oil fuel, so much more do we become dependent upon outside sources of supply. In this country, we have plant in existence, and if the Board of Trade, without legislation, used its powers, we could be on the
highway to producing all that power, not only in petroleum form, but in the form that is much better, namely, industrial alcohol. If we wanted even to go on a petroleum basis, all that we have to do in this country is to use known plant in order to take from the coal oil that would give us independence, and at the same time give us pure atmosphere in our cities. [An HON. MEMBER: "Can you raise steam with industrial alcohol?"] If you do so it would be a waste of material. You could raise steam with industrial alcohol, but no engineer would do that, because the value of industrial alcohol is to get it into your internal combustion engines in order to get the full effect. In this matter the Board of Trade have not only been lax, but they have been criminally neglectful. France, Germany, and America, in their Board of Trade Departments, have all been keenly interested, with the result that France, which 20 years ago was in the backwoods compared with the British nation in power, is to-day a thousand miles ahead of us. The same with America. Notwithstanding, we have Presidents of the Board of Trade, one after another, giving us the same stereotyped form of replies in Debates, instead of having open minds and a keen sense of responsibility, which would show that they are interested in the nation's affairs, and that they are taking advantage of every opportunity which science can give, and applying it to the national advantage.
I might well have gone into many other things. I will deal with one which is mentioned in the Estimates, and that is the payment of £200 per annum to one officer as director of gas administration. I want to take this opportunity of drawing the attention of the Board of Trade to what is happening. When we changed from the system of charging by the cubic foot to that of selling by the therm, we entered not only upon a new method but upon something that is bound to tell very hard against the small gas undertakings. No two seams of coal have the same therm value. The large undertakings can afford to take the output of one or more mines, and they are always, because of that fact, getting a steady output of coal, and having the choice of the best coal. Since no two coals have the same therm value, it means that while the big companies are able to buy the output of one
or more mines, the smaller gas undertakings are going to be left with coal that does not contain the same therm value. That means that the smaller gas undertakings must either increase the price of their gas, or they must continue to lose on the manufacture of gas. I asked the President of the Board of Trade—as I have asked him before, and have never got a satisfactory reply—not to smile, as he has smiled in Debates, on this question. This is a most serious question, and unless something is done immediately it will mean that the poorer people in the outlying districts, where carbonisation is on a small scale, will be compelled either to pay a quarter more or perhaps to go without gas altogether. If the Board of Trade desire to put this on a proper basis all that they have to do is to take an analysis of the coal, and there and then decide on certain classes of coal for the manufacture of gas. That is the only way to give fair play to those who are manufacturing gas. What is happening to-day? The Board of Trade seem to riot in a system of anarchy in the coal trade. The very best coal is used to raise steam, which is the lowest use to which you can put coal. We never get a word of guidance or of control from the Scientific men who say that this is national waste. I know that the brains are inside the Board of Trade, but we want to get them into the House, and on to the Front bench. If the technical experts were allowed in, to deal directly with those matters, I know what would happen. I hope, therefore, that the Board of Trade will not, as in the past, remain in a state of crystallisation, but will become something living and active, moving with the times, and especially keeping abreast of science.

Mr. WILLIAM GREENWOOD: I listened with very great regret to the speech and the tone of the speech of the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Wallhead), especially where he said that he would have no sympathy whatever with those engaged in industry if they were brought down and ruined, were it not for the fact, that if they were brought down and ruined it would, at the same time, bring about the ruin, and possibly the starvation, of the working people. I am sorry to think that the only time when hon. Members opposite, like the hon. Member for Merthyr, can realise the interdependence
of employers and employed in industry in this country, is when ruin faces employers and employed. I very much regret his tone, especially in regard to employers. What would be thought if employers of labour were to talk in the same deprecating strain about British labour? There is no employer of labour on this side whom I know of who has any intention of doing that. I ask the Committee if it is not about time that we should realise that we must all go on the same road together?

The CHAIRMAN: I was about to stop the hon. Member for Merthyr, only lie finished his sentence with such celerity that I was unable to do so I must ask the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. W. Greenwood) to come back to the Board of Trade.

Mr. GREENWOOD: Had I known, Mr. Hope, that you were about to call the hon. Member for Merthyr to order, of course I should not have drawn attention to his remarks. There was another remark the hon. Member made, with which, perhaps, it will be relevant for me to deal. He said that no one on this side of the Committee had pointed out to the Government the dangers they might be running by their attitude in regard to various trade questions during the past few years. That is hardly a fair remark, because those hon. Members who were in the House during the last Parliament, and many hon. Members now in the House, will know that many on this side were not so sure that, on every point in regard to trade, and the way in which they dealt with trade, the Government were entirely right. If one were allowed to do so, one might say that with regard to the most important question of our competition with other countries; namely, the basis on which industries are taxed. I think it would be quite in order to discuss that question, because there can be nothing which affects our competition more keenly, and the point whether we can obtain orders or not, and whether industry is to have a fair field in face of its competitors, than the way in which our industry is taxed.
The hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie), who made a very informative speech in regard to a technical matter, upon which he showed great knowledge, spoke for the first time from the Labour
benches, so far as I can remember, of the importance of developing our home market. I welcome very much indeed such a suggestion coming from that quarter, and I hope when, from this side, suggestions are made as to some methods—other methods, perhaps—of developing our home markets, so that we shall not be so entirely dependent on foreign markets, we shall obtain the hon. Member's sympathy and not his opposition. That is important when we are considering the question of the reasons for the unemployment from which we are suffering. I regret the pessimistic tone of many speakers to-day. I hope they will be proved wrong in their prophecies about the certainty of a bad winter which is before us. We have had quite enough bad winters and also bad summers, in so far as unemployment is concerned. I hope something will occur to bring about a more regular continuance of our export trade, because I firmly believe that until that is done, and until—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must suggest something that the Board of Trade has done, or should do, or should not have done.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I was simply referring to the speeches of hon. Members opposite, because one of them, in particular, called attention to a remark of the President of the Board of Trade that it was a mistake to assume that we ought to try to develop our Empire trade as an exchange for our European market. Perhaps I shall be on safe ground if I refer to the criticism of the President of the Board of Trade when he said that. I suggest that it is not so much an exchange of markets that we want. It is not the exchange of our European market altogether for an increased market within the Empire. Instead of exchanging one market for another, we want to add one market to the other. We want them both. If we are going to do any good, especially in the cotton trade, with which I am connected, we must do this. In that trade, normally, we are dependent, for 75 per cent. of our trade, on export. I believe that of late the proportions have been about 65 per cent. export trade and 35 per cent. home trade, but normally they are 75 per cent. export and 25 per cent. home. If we are to get that back again
we must not only extend our markets within the Empire but get back what is, after all, our greatest market abroad. I therefore welcome all suggestions, from any quarter of the Committee, which tend to encourage the Government to do anything to improve the European situation. I do not think it is wise of us to attach so much blame to the French as one hon. Member did. After all, it is very difficult to say exactly.

The CHAIRMAN: The President of the Board of Trade cannot be responsible for the French. This is a Vote for the Board of Trade in regard to what the Board are doing. If the hon. Member can suggest what they can do, or ought to have done, he will be in order, but he is really going very wide of the Vote.

Mr. GREENWOOD: An hon. Member opposite was discussing the ease with which a particular messenger of his reached the palms of somebody in the Ruhr, by means of a few 10s. notes, and got some goods into Yorkshire which he had some difficulty in obtaining. I was simply referring to that—not to blame the French at all, but rather let us see if we could adopt some suggestion to bring about a better state of affairs. After all, it is an improvement in the nation that we want. We want to get our mills working again, and I think it a mistake for hon. Members opposite to move to reduce, even by £100, the salary of the right hon. Gentleman when I believe that, though in some respects perhaps he is not doing quite so much as he ought to do in regard to the development of home industries, yet in the main he is thinking all the time how he can help to develop our industries.

Mr. T. SHAW: He thinks on crooked lines.

Mr. GREENWOOD: That is how hon. Members of this Committee differ. I would ask hon. Members to settle their differences. What is the good of us all blaming each other? Instead of always saying that the British are no good, that British employers are to blame—we do not say that British workmen are no good—let us proceed on other lines. Let us have a little more understanding. Let us admit to each other that we can do just as much as the foreigners can do, but we must start on an even keel. We
cannot do it if we are handicapped, as we are at present, with a taxation of 35s. a week for every man in the country.

Viscount CURZON: May I appeal to you, Mr. Hope, or to the Treasury Bench and to hon. Members opposite to point out that owing to the ruling of the Chair we have not been able to raise any subject relating to the Mercantile Marine, which is a very large part of the Board of Trade Vote. I appeal to you to use your influence to see that this discussion on the salary of the President of the Board of Trade is not unduly prolonged, so that we may have a chance of asking a few questions relating to the British Mercantile Marine.

The CHAIRMAN: If hon. Members get up and catch my eye, I am bound to call on them.

Captain BERKELEY: I should not dream of coming between the hon. and gallant Member and his desire, if it were not for the fact that during the Debate very little has been said about the revival of British trade with Central Europe and the Continent. There are one or two considerations which I should like to put to the Parliamentary Secretary, particularly in view of the very ominous picture of trade possibilities in the coming months which has been drawn by the President of the Board of Trade, a picture which will be received with consternation and alarm by the country when it reads it to-morrow. The right hon. Gentleman has, indeed, led us to expect a gloomy state of affairs. Export trade diminishing to-day and likely to diminish more in the near future; orders not coming in; prospects nothing like so good as were expected. That is a very different picture from the, I will not say rosy, but more highly tinted vista that was opened up at the beginning of this Parliament, when the late Prime Minister told us, to our great gratification, that it seemed to him that the bottom of slump had been reached, and that we were coming to a point when trade would really revive.
The President of the Board of Trade has reaffirmed the belief of the Government that the future of British trade lies rather in the development of Dominion markets than in seeking to re-establish the trade on the Continent which we used to enjoy. He did not argue the matter
at length, but that was the point that seemed to me the most interesting of his speech. Of course, no one wishes to belittle the importance of trade with the Dominions. Per head of the population, our trade with the Dominions is the most important trade which we have, but we must not allow our pride and gratification at that fact to mislead us. We must remember that our Dominions are relatively sparsely populated, and, when you consider trade in terms of a return per head of the population, that does not mean that your trade with the Dominions is of anything like the same magnitude as the trade used to be with the Continent, and, as I believe, it might be again if the Board of Trade can see their way to investigate the position on the Continent to-day.
My excuse for urging this in this Debate is the fact that I have just returned from Vienna, where I had occasion to go recently, and during my stay there I took every opportunity of consulting experts in the commercial world, members of the chamber of commerce, bankers, and people of standing, with a view to discovering how far it was possible in the near future to hope for a revival of our Central European trade, and I am bound to say, with all diffidence, that, on the whole, I formed a favourable opinion and was encouraged to think that there was a distinct possibility of revival. There are certainly unhealthy signs. For one thing, there are too many bankers in Vienna. For another, I think there are too many employees in the various industries. There are more persons employed than the industries can carry. But apart from that it did seem to me that the stabilisation of the exchange, which has now remained stationary for an encouraging period of nearly a year has brought about a state of affairs in which we might be encouraged to hope for a revival of trade if the trade restrictions existing in those areas—I do not refer merely to trade restrictions existing in Austria, but rather more to those existing in some of the succession States—could be removed.
I do not put this at all as a tariff question, because my information is that the tariffs that exist are not really a serious barrier to trade. What hampers the revival of our trade on the Continent at this moment are such things
as the prohibition of import and export, the requirement of obtaining licences to import and export, and, even more serious, the necessity in some countries for a licence to make a payment for goods. The Government have just negotiated a highly successful commercial Treaty with Czechoslovakia, and I venture to hope that the Noble Lord will be able to tell us that the Government is prepared to pursue a similar policy with other central European States. If the Government were prepared to make friendly representations to these States with a view to the removal of restrictions, I think that the very high standard of our prestige in Central Europe at the present moment would ensure the most serious attention being paid to those representations. I would not only urge the Government, therefore, to consider the possibility of negotiating for commercial Treaties with these States and with Austria and Hungary, but I would also suggest that they might perhaps consider making friendly representations to these countries with a view to obtaining the removal of restrictions as between themselves. Restrictions upon trade between these States are operating to the detriment of the revival of British trade.
May I put one or two specific questions to the Noble Lord with regard to foreign trade generally, and particularly with regard to the export credit scheme to which reference was made by the hon. and gallant Member for Hull. Will he tell us how far the trading community is making use of that scheme, and whether, in his opinion, the terms of it are sufficiently elastic to obtain the best results? Will he also give us some information with regard to the Trade Facilities Act? Will he say, in view of the fact that the Act provides that loans should be made only for capital expenditure, whether he is satisfied that that is the best use that could be made of the money in view of the fact that the vital need at this moment is to revive our export trade. Finally I should like to ask a question with regard to the trade of Crown Colonies. In view of the fact that the Crown Colonies are, in effect, governed from the Colonial Office, by reason of the existence of official majorities in practically all of them, ought we not to regard the Crown Colonies as in effect forming integral
parts of this country? This has an application to the arguments that were put forward by the hon. Gentleman on my right who spoke a moment or two ago with regard to the development of home markets. What I should like to put to the Noble Lord is this. In the first place, in view of these facts, the Board of Trade ought to recognise that it has a special liability in respect of Crown Colonies, an obligation to safeguard the interests of trading communities there; and, specifically, with regard to the export credit schemes and the Trade Facilities Act, will he tell me if it is possible to make some of the money provided under that scheme and that Act available through the Colonial Office for the financing and carrying on of industries in the Crown Colonies of the Empire?

Viscount WOLMER: Perhaps it would suit the general convenience of the Committee if I endeavoured to make some reply to the various points that have been made in this Debate since my right hon Friend the President of the Board of Trade made his remarks, and then that the Committee should pass to the other matters which I know that hon. Members on both sides are anxious to discuss. I am afraid that, although I am much tempted, I cannot at this hour follow my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Nottingham (Captain Berkeley) into the very big questions upon which he has lightly touched in the course of his interesting remarks. Indeed, those questions would be more properly dealt with by my hon. Friends who have lately been sitting on my right and on my left—the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department.
I desire, however, to deal with some very cogent and important criticisms of the Estimates that were made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Hohler), in regard to what are called the aftermath services that resulted from the War. He asked one or two questions in regard to those services, and perhaps the Committee would like to have a little information concerning them. The hon. Member asked why £6,000 was still necessary for the Royal Commission on Wheat Supplies; why the Timber Disposal Department was still in being; and why
there was a Vote for Diverted Cotton Cargoes. These are all matters which are still subject to winding up after the great transactions that took place during the War. I should like to say that the Government and the Board of Trade are doing everything they can to bring these war services to a termination, but where there are large accounts in existence, large claims against the British Government on the part of foreign Governments or private firms, as well as large claims by the British Government against other parties, it would obviously be foolish and unwise to allow our chances of satisfactorily settling these claims to be prejudiced by lack of proper accountancy or proper care at Whitehall.
To show the Committee the magnitude of the amounts that are still involved, I may quote the following figures. Claims are at present outstanding in regard to the Food Department that amount to the sum of £4,000,000; there are claims in regard to wheat and flour that amount to about £6,000,000; and there are claims with regard to timber that amount to nearly £500,000. These are, for the most part, claims which are now before the Law Courts, matters which are either under arbitration or under litigation, and they concern, of course, firms and countries all over the world, for this nation drew its supplies from all over the world during the Great War. Although we are endeavouring to bring, and are indeed bringing, these accounts to an end as quickly as possible, it would be unwise to bring them to an end until these cases have been disposed of. Last year, for instance, the remnants of the Food Department, which has only a very small staff left, obtained a reduction in claims against the Government of over £350,000 more than the total cost of the Department, and a similar saving could be shown in practically every one of these winding lip Departments. It would be false economy to prejudice claims with regard to many millions by saving a few thousands through the premature discharge of staffs.
I hope that the Food Department and the Timber Department will be finally wound up before the end of this financial year, and that all the claims will by then have been disposed of. I trust that this item will not recur after that in our Estimates;
at any rate if it does it will only be to a very small extent.
The hon. and learned Member for Gillingham dealt with the Clearing Office for Enemy Debts and complained that the expenditure was very heavy. I may inform him that every penny of that expenditure is met by Appropriations-in-Aid and therefore the Department costs the country nothing at all. The Clearing Office for Enemy Debts is an organisation set up under the Treaty of Versailles by which debts that were owing by Germans to British subjects and by British subjects to Germans before the War are set against each other after the War, and the money is collected by Clearing Offices in Great Britain and in Germany. The Clearing Office is proceeding to collect for British subjects moneys that were owing to them by German nationals before the War, and a commission of 2½ per cent. is payable on all moneys so collected. Consequently the Office is not costing the country a penny.
10.0 P.M.
Then the hon. and learned Member asked about the Reparation Claims Department. There I come to a branch of the somewhat varied activities of the Board of Trade of which a good deal was heard in the early part of the Debate this afternoon. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Shinwell) and the hon. and gallant Member for Torquay (Sir C. Burn) spoke about the position of claimants for a share in the £5,000,000 which is being distributed by the Royal Commission in respect of suffering and damage caused by enemy action. With the permission of the Committee, I would like to explain exactly how the matter now stands, and what the position of the Board of Trade is. The history of this £5,000,000 in a nutshell is that during the War a Royal Proclamation invited all British subjects having claims against the enemy for damage or suffering to lodge their claims with a Department of the Foreign Office. On the 4th May, 1920, the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. A. Chamberlain), who was then Leader of the House, announced that the Government of the day had decided to allot £5,000,000 out of the first receipts of German reparations as an ex gratia grant in satisfaction of the claims of British subjects against Germany. He also announced at the same time that a Royal Commission
would be appointed to distribute this £5,000,000 among those who had lodged claims against Germany, and who had notified their claims to the Foreign Office under the Royal Proclamation. The Reparation Claims Department of the Board of Trade then came into being, and the function of that Department has been to collect, sort and prepare these claims for submission to the Royal Commission. The Royal Commission was appointed by the late Government in August, 1921, and when they commenced their work they were faced with the fact that they had to distribute a limited sum of £5,000,000 among an unknown number of claimants, because claims had been continuously coming in ever since the Royal Proclamation of 1916. Therefore the Royal Commission had to fix a date after which no claim would be entertained by them and the date fixed was 15th February, 1922. But it transpired that there were certain claimants who had lodged their claims with other Departments than the Reparation Claims Department of the Board of Trade, and the Royal Commission issued a further notice by which they allowed any claimant who had lodged his claim with another Government Department to lodge it with the correct Department by the end of last year.
I desire to make it clear that in the execution of their extremely difficult and invidious duty the Royal Commission have constitutionally a perfectly free hand. They are not under the control of the Board of Trade, or of the Government, or of any Department. They are appointed by His Majesty and their duty is to report. All that the Reparations Claims Department of the Board of Trade can do and has done is to carry out the decisions of the Royal Commission. That Royal Commission has already issued one Report, which deals with claims affecting life, health, and seamen's effects. That Report was issued last January. It deals with 29,000 claims, and nearly all of these have been paid by the Reparations Claims Department. The Royal Commission is now considering some 12,000 property claims—claims concerning damage to property, not only in this country, but property belonging to British subjects in all parts of the world, through enemy action.

Dr. SALTER: Do I understand the Noble Lord to say that the seamen's claims have all been disposed of?

Viscount WOLMER: No, I said the life and health claims had been dealt with by the first Report. These were claims against Germany, whether they were by seamen or not, in respect of injury to health or in respect of the death of persons upon whom the claimants were dependent, and also in regard to the personal effects of seamen who were torpedoed. These are the claims which were dealt with by the first Report of the Royal Commission in January this year. The Royal Commission is now engaged in considering 12,000 property cases.

Dr. SALTER: Do I understand these claims have been all dealt with?

Viscount WOLMER: If the hon. Member will allow me to finish my explanation, he will see, I think, how the matter stands. The Royal Commission is now engaged in the consideration of about 12,000 property claims. They are all claims in respect to British property damaged by the enemy in all parts of the world. It is hoped that the Royal Commission's Report on these claims will be in the possession of the House before the end of this year, although, of course, it is impossible to give any definite or binding undertaking. As the Committee is also aware, since the Royal Commission's first Report was issued, there has been a large number of new claims, presented to the Reparations Claims Department of the Board of Trade, or sent to hon. Members by their constituents and by them forwarded, from persons who allege that they were unaware that they should have applied to the Royal Commission before. February, 1922, and who are now for the first time making their claims.

Mr. SHINWELL: Are they seamen?

Viscount WOLMER: A large proportion of them are seamen. There are 15,000 such claimants. The hon. Member for Linlithgow, in the course of his remarks, asked why I had given varying figures as to the number of claims received. The explanation is a very simple one. It is that a great many of the property claimants, who had claimed in time, and whose claims were not covered by the first Report, sent in fresh claims on the publication of that Report, and the De-
partment was so overwhelmed with correspondence that for a month or two it was impossible to examine these claims fully and discover that they were duplicated, as many thousands of them were. As far as our present information goes, there are some 15,000 belated claimants who have for the first time made application for a share in the £5,000,000. Hon. Members, speaking in this Debate, have asked the President of the Board of Trade to be sympathetic with the belated claimants. I can assure the Committee that there is nobody more sympathetic with all seamen than is the Board of Trade, but this is a matter in which the Board of Trade has no authority. It is purely a question for the Royal Commission, and I can assure the Committee that all the facts have been placed fully before the Royal Commission.

Mr. SHINWELL: In the event of the Royal Commission deciding not to consider any further claims or to pay any claims submitted to them, would the Board of Trade or this Committee have no power to deal with them?

Mr. PETO: May I ask the Noble Lord whether this stream of belated claims has now abated or ceased, and can he tell us what newspapers were used by the Royal Commission for this advertisement which failed to reach so many people?

Viscount WOLMER: I should not like to say that the stream of new claims has ceased. It is not of such big volume as it was, but it still continues. It has abated if you like, but it has by no means stopped. In regard to the question the hon. Member for Linlithgow asked, I think I must ask him to wait until the Royal Commission has reported. As he is aware, the Royal Commission has said in its first Report that it will consider any case which for exceptional reasons was not sent in in time. If any claimant can satisfy the Royal Commission that for a sufficient and good reason he did not send in a claim within the prescribed date, the Royal Commission have announced that they will treat it as a claim which is not belated. I can assure the hon. Member and the Committee that every one of those 15,000 claims will be individually examined by the Reparation Claims Department, acting on behalf of the Royal Commission, and any claim
that is, in the opinion of the Royal Commission, an exceptional claim will be dealt with as if it were not belated.

Sir G. COLLINS: Do I understand that, in the case of applicants who claimed originally from another Government Department, but whose cases were not forwarded to the proper Department by 31st December last year, their claims will be disallowed? I have several such cases before me, and it seems hard that indidividuals who have lodged their claims with one Department, but not with the right Department, should not have their claims considered.

Viscount WOLMER: I will be glad if my hon. Friend will bring such cases to my notice, and I can assure him I will go personally into them.

Sir STANLEY JOHNSON: Will the Noble Lord tell the Committee what money has been paid to claimants whose claims have been reported on in the Interim Report of the Commission?

Viscount WOLMER: The amount distributed is about £2,000,000 out of £5,000,000.

Sir S. JOHNSON: Has that gone wholly to the claimants whose cases are included in the Report?

Viscount WOLMER: Yes. None of the costs of administration are taken out of the £5,000,000. All that is borne on the Board of Trade Vote. The £5,000,000 go wholly and solely to the claimants. I would only add that the President of the Board of Trade is making every effort to get this matter cleared up and finished as soon as he possibly can. In other Departments we are cutting down the staffs as rapidly as possible, but in this Department, in order to cope with the tremendous rush of claimants that has taken place since the publication of the Interim Report, we have found it necessary very largely to increase the personnel in order to get through the work as speedily as possible. Although I hope it will not be necessary to have a Supplementary Estimate to meet the increased cost, yet I can assure the Committee that even that will not deter the Board of Trade from seeing that this matter is dealt with as rapidly as possible.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is it not the case that in the Estimate for the coming financial year the personnel is 92 as against 161 last year?

Viscount WOLMER: Yes, but since then we have increased the personnel because of this great rush of work, and the figure 92 is lower than the number of persons who are at this moment employed. This matter has gone on for so long that we are anxious to bring it to an end as speedily as possible. I hope that gives the Committee the information that they want on this matter of the £5,000,000, and now I venture to express the hope that we may be allowed to pass to other Votes on which I know hon. Members on both sides would like to say something.

Sir BURTON CHADWICK: It may perhaps interest the Committee to know that I have a letter from the Mercantile Marine Service Association, in which they express the greatest congratulations to the Reparations Claims Department for the way in which these claims have been dealt with, courteously and, as far as they can be in such a complicated matter, expeditiously.

Mr. SHINWELL: We are still asking for more, all the same.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: What does the Noble Lord consider to be exceptional reasons with regard to these claims? He has told us that the House is practically powerless in this matter, because it is entirely in the hands of the Royal Commission. Many hon. Members must have had very hard cases brought to their notice by widows and others on this particular point, and I submit that before we pass from this Vote we, as guardians and trustees for those who are unable to help themselves, may quite legitimately ask for the guidance of this Committee. The Noble Lord has said it is a matter for the Royal Commission. We have all had the most courteous replies from the Noble Lord, but that does not carry the matter very far, and I want to press on the Government this question, as to how far these belated claims are going to be ruled out from getting any recognition by the Royal Commission unless they can be shown to be exceptional cases. May I put a typical case? These are poor, ignorant women, who, not seeing the papers in which this notice was given, were not
aware that they were entitled to make any claim or to have any assistance in this way, and it was only when a neighbour, another widow, who had had the good fortune to see these notices, had made a claim and got her money that the other persons realised that they were in justice entitled to some claim. Would that be an exceptional case, and, if not, what power have the House of Commons to assist the Royal Commission in dealing with this matter? Surely the question of justice does not depend on the particular time at which a claim is made, and if the hands of the Royal Commission are tied by the limit of the £5,000,000, surely the power is in the hands of the Government to assist the Royal Commission, and further extend the date, if necessary, by supplementing this amount.

Viscount WOLMER: The hon. Member asks me what is to be considered an exceptional reason. My answer is that I do not know. As I have explained to the Committee, the Royal Commission at the present moment is at work on the property claims which were in time, and these belated claims must necessarily wait until the property claims have been disposed of.

Mr. SHINWELL: How long will that be?

Viscount WOLMER: I hope they will be disposed of before the end of this year. What the Royal Commission, when it has considered all the facts of the case, will decide is an exceptional case I do not know; nor, I think, does the Royal Commission know either. But in any case we cannot affect the decision of the Royal Commission. We must wait until the Royal Commission has reported, and then it will be for the House, if it considers further action is necessary, to take that action, for the remedy lies with it. At the present moment the matter is in the hands of the Royal Commission.

Sir JOHN BUTCHER: Might I ask the Noble Lord as to the compensation:n connection with the air raids? Some of those concerned have suffered very severely and have not yet got anything. Might I ask if these cases could be considered as quickly as possible?

Viscount WOLMER: These cases are among the property cases with which I dealt earlier.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £262,448, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 145; Noes, 214.

Division No. 298.]
AYES.
[10.24 p.m.


Adams, D.
Hartshorn, Vernon
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Phillipps, Vivian


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)
Potts, John S.


Ammon, Charles George
Herriotts, J.
Pringle, W. M. R.


Attlee, C. R.
Hill, A.
Richards, R.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hinds, John
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Barnes, A.
Hirst, G. H.
Riley, Ben


Batey, Joseph
Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)
Ritson, J.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy)
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)


Bennett, A. J. (Mansfield)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Bonwick, A.
Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)
Rose, Frank H.


Bowdier, W. A.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Royce, William Stapleton


Broad, F. A.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Saklatvala, S.


Brotherton, J.
Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)
Salter, Dr. A.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Scrymgeour, E.


Buckie, J.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sexton, James


Burgess, S.
Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)
Shakespeare, G. H.


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Shinwell, Emanuel


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Simpson, J. Hope


Clarke, Sir E. C.
Kenyon, Barnet
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Kirkwood, D.
Snell, Harry


Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell
Lansbury, George
Snowden, Philip


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lawson, John James
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Leach, W.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Duffy, T. Gavan
Lee, F.
Sturrock, J. Leng


Duncan, C.
Linfield, F. C.
Sullivan, J.


Dunnico, H.
Lowth, T.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Edge, Captain Sir William
Lunn, William
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Edmonds, G.
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Tillett, Benjamin


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
M'Entee, V. L.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.
McLaren, Andrew
Warne, G. H.


England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)
March, S.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Gosling, Harry
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)
Westwood J.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Middleton, G.
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Millar, J. D.
Whiteley, W.


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Greenall, T.
Morel, E. D.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Morris, Harold
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Muir, John W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Groves, T.
Murnin, H.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Greedy, T. W.
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Wright, W.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
O'Grady, Captain James
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hancock, John George
Oliver, George Harold



Hardie, George D.
Paling, W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Spoor and Mr. T. Griffiths.


NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Brass, Captain W.
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Brassey, Sir Leonard
Conway, Sir W. Martin


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Priggs, Harold
Cope, Major William


Apsley, Lord
Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)
Bruford, R.
Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bruton, Sir James
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Buckingham, Sir H.
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Banks, Mitchell
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.


Barnston, Major Harry
Burney, Corn. (Middx., Uxbridge)
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)


Becker, Harry
Butcher, Sir John George
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Butt, Sir Alfred
Dawson, Sir Philip


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Button, H. S.
Doyle, N. Grattan


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Cadogan, Major Edward
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Berry, Sir George
Cassels, J. D.
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)


Betterton, Henry B.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Ellis, R. G.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Faile, Major Sir Bertram Godfray


Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)
Chapman, Sir S.
Fawkes, Major F. H.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Churchman, Sir Arthur
Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.


Blundell, F. N.
Clayton, G. C.
Flanagan, W. H.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Ford, Patrick Johnston


Forestier-Walker, L.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Rothschild, Lionel de


Furness, G. J.
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Lorden, John William
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Lorimer, H. D.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Lort-Williams, J.
Russell, William (Bolton)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lougher, L.
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney


Gould, James C.
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Lumley, L. R.
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Gretton, Colonel John
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Manville, Edward
Shepperson, E. W.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Margesson, H. D. R.
Shipwright, Captain D.


Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)
Mercer, Colonel H.
Singleton, J. E.


Halstead, Major D.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Skelton, A. N.


Harvey, Major S. E.
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hawke, John Anthony
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)
Murchison, C. K.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Nall, Major Joseph
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Hewett, Sir J. P.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.


Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Hiley, Sir Ernest
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Titchfield, Marquess of


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Nield, Sir Herbert
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Hopkins, John W. W.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Wallace, Captain E.


Houfton, John Plowright
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Paget, T. G.
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Hudson, Capt. A.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wells, S. R.


Hughes, Collingwood
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Peto, Basil E.
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Philipson, Mabel
White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Hurd, Percy A.
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Raeburn, Sir William H.
Winterton, Earl


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Raine, W.
Wise, Frederick


Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel
Wolmer, Viscount


Jephcott, A. R.
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Wood, Maj. Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.)
Remer, J. R.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Rentoul, G. S.
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Reynolds, W. G. W.



Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Robertson-Despencer, Major (Islgtn, W.)
the Rt. Hon. G. A. Gibbs.


Lamb, J. Q.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)



Original Question put, and agreed to.

MERCANTILE MARINE SERVICES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £203,552, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924, for the Salaries and Expenses of certain services transferred from the Mercantile Marine Fund, and other services connected with the Mercantile Marine, including a Coast Watching Force, General Register and Record Office of Shipping and Seamen, Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions, and Grants to the General Lighthouse Fund and other Lighthouse Authorities."—[Note: £300,000 has been voted on account.]

Mr. SHINWELL: As the Sitting is drawing to an end I have no desire to embark on a lengthy speech, but I take advantage of this Vote in order to direct some questions to the President of the Board of Trade. The first matter to which I draw attention is the imposition of fees
on merchant seamen in connection with the examination for life boat efficiency. I deal with the matter briefly, because I understand hon. Members opposite who are interested in seafaring questions, are anxious to deal with other important matters, and from the seamen's point of view these are matters which might very properly be ventilated in this House. Ever since the Titanic disaster, there has been considerable comment as to the alleged inefficiency of merchant seamen in connection with the manning of lifeboats on board ship, and, in consequence of the agitation which followed the Titanic disaster, the Board of Trade took the matter in hand and imposed something in the nature of an examination. That examination was in abeyance during, and for some time after the War. Recently, the Board of Trade indicated they were about to make the examination more rigid and regular. Speaking, as I do, on behalf of a very large body of
seamen, I am expressing their point of view when I say that they are entirely in sympathy with the desire of the Board of Trade—and, I hope, of the shipowners and the general community—that seamen should be properly instructed in lifeboat drill and should be truly efficient in that respect. The men are exceedingly anxious that they should be not only capable of protecting themselves in times of stress on board ship, when a disaster occurs, but that they should be at the beck and call of the travelling public in such circumstances. But what the seamen do object to is this: The Board of Trade have insisted on the men being efficient, and, as a result of that, the shipowners have arranged for seamen about to be engaged on vessels to undergo an examination on board certain vessels, particularly of the trans-Atlantic liner class, and a fee of 2s. has been imposed on the men. It is a very moderate fee, I admit, but one which, in my judgment, and in the judgment of seamen generally, ought not to be imposed on the seamen themselves.

Mr. GOULD: On the shipowners?

Mr. SHINWELL: Some shipowners do not endorse this view, but, generally speaking, the opinion of shipowners and of seamen is that the charges which are incurred as the result of the examination imposed on the men should be borne by the Board of Trade itself, and I think that that is perfectly reasonable. If, in the interests of the travelling public, the men on board ship are required to be efficient so far as lifeboat work is concerned, then such a charge ought to be imposed on a State Department, and not on those who are expected to show the efficiency which the Board of Trade desires. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give this matter his very close attention. He said, I think, the other week, in reply to a question of my own, that it was not being made a condition of employment that a man should demonstrate his lifeboat efficiency, but as a matter of fact some of the liner companies now do not employ a man unless he possesses a lifeboat certificate, and in many cases—and I think that in this matter the Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon) will agree with me, because recently we went to inspect one of the large liners, and saw a most efficient examination,
which impressed us both, so far as efficiency was concerned—the Noble Lord will agree with me when I say that the liner companies are themselves not anxious to impose this fee on the men, and would much rather it were undertaken by the Board of Trade, but that they are making it a condition of employment that the men should have the certificate. In many cases the man has been unemployed for, say, six months, or sometimes 12 months, as is the case with a large number of seamen nowadays, and he cannot get employment until this fee of 2s. has been paid. It may happen that the 2s. is not forthcoming, and the man, not having the certificate, is not able to get employment. I am sure that no one in this Committee wants to prevent a seaman from getting employment simply because he has not the necessary 2s. to obtain the certificate, and I would ask the Board of Trade to give that their attention.
The only other matter, in view of the lateness of the hour, to which I want to refer, is in regard to a promise made to me by the right hon. Gentleman some time ago. I pointed out to him that his predecessor, who is now Prime Minister, had promised that he would make a personal inspection of some of the forecastles on board ship, in order to ascertain whether the accommodation was of the best possible kind, and the right hon. Gentleman promised me on that occasion that he would carry out the promise which his predecessor had found himself unable to fulfil, owing to his change of office. So far as I am aware, he has not yet done so.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I have.

Mr. SHINWELL: Then I would ask him whether, as the result of what he has seen, he is of opinion that a change ought to take place so far as forecastle accommodation is concerned? I will give just one or two brief quotations from reports of medical officers of health at certain seaports in this connection. One is from the annual report of the medical superintendent of the Royal Seamen's Hospital at Cardiff. He is not a medical officer of health in the ordinary sense, but his report is just as useful. He says:
In spite of the popular belief in the healthiness of the sailor's life, consumption is terribly rife among seamen and stokers. This is accounted for by the limited, con-
fined, ill-ventilated sleeping, resting and eating space between decks.
Again, Dr. Hope, the medical officer of the Port of Liverpool, in his annual report, alludes to the number of deaths caused by the peculiar environment of the sailor, such as damp forecastles, diminished water supplies, close association of the sick with the healthy, and the confined quarters on shipboard. These are unbiased reports by those who are best competent to judge, and I want to ask whether it is proposed to take any action in this matter? I am not blaming the shipowners in general for the conditions which obtain on shipboard in this connection. I know that most of the new ships which are now being constructed, and those which have been constructed within the last few years, have accommodation of a superior kind. I have seen the accommodation, and the seamen are quite satisfied with it. There is splendid bathroom accommodation, and in every respect it is all that could be desired. But on the older class of vessels the forecastle accommodation is of the worst possible description, and particularly does that apply on the liners. One would imagine that on liners, carrying passengers who pay very high fares, the seaman's accommodation would be of a parallel character, but it is far from being so, and the accommodation for seamen on some of our well-known liners is worse than on some of the old tramps. I ask the Board of Trade to apply some of the powers it possesses to improve the accommodation for seamen.

Viscount CURZON: I have sat here all the afternoon to try to get a few words in on the subject of merchant shipping. I agree with all the hon. Member has said in regard to the examinations for seamanship. The amount involved is very small indeed. The total amount is only about £2,500 a year for all the examinations held at all the ports. Also, the seamen, whether they are employed or unemployed—and in most cases they are unemployed when they take the examination—have to pay this two bob and it is a real and genuine hardship in many cases.

Sir W. RAEBURN: Is the Noble Lord aware that the question of this 2s. fee has not even been mooted by the Seamen's Panel on the National Maritime Board, which deals with their complaints?

Mr. SHINWELL: That is because he does not know anything about it and does not represent the seamen.

Viscount CURZON: I am not concerned with the point raised by the hon. Member. He is as well aware of the facts of the case as I am. But I am certain he himself does not like the idea of imposing a charge of 2s. upon the man for an examination in life-saving, simply in the interest of the passengers he may or may not carry, when the man may be out of employment and not know where to get a crust of bread. I am certain he would not like to support such a proposition. Another point is the question of deck-loads. Recently the British Chamber of Shipping presented a Report dealing with deckloads. The shipping community are in certain spheres feeling very much the competition of Scandinavian steamers. They are allowed to have very much larger deckloads than English steamers. I have seen some of these Scandinavian steamers in the North Sea in a very unseaworthy condition, with their deck cargo partly shifted. The British Chamber of Shipping has presented a Report dealing with the subject and proposing some alterations in the Regulations which amount to an alteration in the loadline. I hope, whatever the Board of Trade may do in the coming year they will set their faces against any alteration whatever in the loadline of ships. I regard it as absolutely essential that the loadline should be kept as it is.
Another question I should like to touch on is the question of lifesaving appliances generally, and in connection with that, wireless. The Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee recently published a Report, in which they made certain recommendations. I have put certain questions to the Board of Trade to know whether they are carrying out the recommendations. I am assured that they are, but whatever they are doing nothing seems to happen. I hope the President of the Board of Trade will accelerate the translation of the Report of that Committee into action.
In regard to wireless in ships' boats, we had a case recently of a ship being lost in the Indian Ocean, and the boats' crews having to make an unparalleled voyage in open boats across 1,000 or 1,500 miles
of water in order to reach land. It is possible that had this ship carried at least one boat equipped with a wireless receiving and transmitting set, the crews would not have had to make that tremendous voyage, with so much risk and loss of life. I urge the President of the Board of Trade to carry out without any unnecessary delay the recommendation of the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee with regard to wireless in boats. There is another point, in regard to unemployment amongst merchant service captains and officers, who are compelled to exist upon charity. Could not the Board of Trade do something to help these men. The public, the shipowners, and the Shipmasters' Association have already combined and raised a small fund. I would like to see it many times larger. Could not the Board of Trade also do something to help? It is dreadful that in a country so dependent upon its mercantile marine, the officers out of employment should be forced to exist upon charity.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I will answer several of the points that have been raised. With respect to the question of boat drill, I am very much interested in the point put forward, but my difficulty is that it is not a statutory duty. Therefore, the whole thing is voluntary. It is a case where the Board of Trade has met what is, I believe, the general convenience by providing for this examination; but it is not a statutory provision.

Viscount CURZON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that they cannot get employment on board ship unless they have gone through this examination?

Mr. GOULD: Is it not a fact that the Board of Trade have made it a practice to see that the inspection services throughout, in regard to shipping, is a self-contained and profitable transaction? In every other Department, where the welfare of the public is concerned, the charge is borne by the State, but in this case the charge is borne by the shipowners or the men.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: That is not so. That was the recommendation of the Committee, but it is not a recommendation which I accepted. What I propose was that the cost of the service should be borne half and half. That is the
present position. I am prepared to go into this question with the Treasury and look into the cost. I think I ought to get the opinion of the National Maritime Board. [An HON. MEMBER: "It does not represent the seamen!"] Oh, yes. I do not think that is fair—

Mr. SHINWELL: Is that not obvious from what the right hon. Gentleman said? He said he knew nothing about it.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: No. The National Maritime Board represents the seamen and the owners. If I were to ask either the union or the Chamber of Shipping they would bear me out. I am prepared to go into this question and get their opinion upon it. If I find it is a serious matter, I am quite prepared to take the question up with the Treasury to see whether on another Estimate provision for this can be made. I cannot, obviously, across the Floor of the Committee—and I have no authority—give a pledge of this kind, but it is a matter which ought to be considered.
With regard to the question of accommodation, I did carry out the promise I made as to an inquiry. I found that you got some up-to-date ships with extremely good accommodation, and that you had a number of old ships—perhaps 30 years old—where the accommodation was bad. The practical question is this: I can make a great many Regulations after, perhaps, getting statutory authority; but, suppose I were to make Regulations to bring the old ships up to the requirements of the best ships now being turned out. In the first place, that would be physically impossible, and you could not reconstruct the ships to do it. If I tried to do that, the ships would be scrapped and, especially in these very difficult times, I do not think I should be helping the case of the men by laying down these Regulations which, on paper, look ideal, but which would not help them if, at a pinch, they find they had not the ships to go to. With regard to load lines, if my hon. and gallant Friend, after the Debate is over, looks at a Measure now before the House, he will see that special provision is being made to deal more effectively with ships coming into our ports under conditions which transgress our Regulations in this respect.
As to the fitting of wireless on boats, nobody appreciates more than my hon.
and gallant Friend that the matter is not a simple one. Apart altogether from the question of expense, you have the consideration of taking up a great deal more space in the boat. These, however, are just the kind of things which it is very important should be worked out by the advisory committee, and any practical proposals we shall, of course, consider. As to the Regulations generally, my hon. and gallant Friend knows that the new Regulations are now before the advisory committee, and we are awaiting their report.

Sir BURTON CHADWICK: It is lamentable that a matter so important as the British mercantile marine should receive only 30 minutes' consideration. In regard to what my hon. Friend opposite said about the 2s. fee for the initiation of a man into the management of a boat, if a man could be taught to handle a boat for 2s. then that does not matter much. I know it cost the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton) more than 2s. to learn to handle a boat. The question of wireless is one which is of very far-reaching importance. The aspect of that, upon which I wish to touch, is this: that the cost to the shipowner of wireless on his ship to-day is monstrous. It is right, I think, to provide wireless. I was one of the advocates in this House years ago for fitting wireless on every ship, if only from the point of view of its value as a life-saving medium, but the cost to which the Board of Trade has forced the shipowner to go is prohibitive, and should be, and can be, reduced. It was introduced on ships down to 1,600 tons, but I wanted it on ships of a lower tonnage, and to-day it is advocated for lifeboats. But if a lad after a few months' training could go into the air with wireless in an aeroplane, and operate the wireless, and, I think, fight his machine at the same time with an efficiency which would mean the difference between dropping shells on his own lines and on the German lines—I may be a little extreme in my description—but if that kind of result could be produced in that way, surely it is possible for wireless to be established on a tramp steamer or on a lifeboat, so that any member of the crew could operate that wireless and call up any steamer within reasonable range to pick up a lifeboat which is leaving a
sinking ship, or receive an emergency call by wireless from a tramp steamer. I would urge attention to that point, because it is a great hardship to the shipowner and it is a great obstruction to the use of wireless. We have nowadays—I hope that the hon. Member for Linlithgow will forgive me—a body of people on board ship known as wireless operators, whom I describe as useless, obstructive people. They are not wanted on board ship. They are useless on board ship. They know nothing about ship life and should not be there. We might have a system by which boys going to sea might have sufficient wireless knowledge to enable them to operate simple wireless, not the extraordinary extravagant wireless which we are forced to have to-day, for the purpose of life saving service in the mercantile marine.

Mr. GOULD: In the few moments which I have left I wish to express agreement with what the hon. Member for Linlithgow has said as to the 2s. fee. We make a lot of fuss about these men who, for instance, were on the "Trevisa" boats, but nobody knows better than the hon. Member for St. Helens and myself, who have been to sea in a practical way, that the average man who goes to sea to-day knows nothing about lifeboat work. It takes very good men to handle a lifeboat in a heavy sea, and the men who go to sea are not accustomed to handle a lifeboat in a heavy sea. The 2s. fee which is charged is an outrage. I do not object in the least to pay for it myself, but in the case of other industries I find that the State takes care of the individual in the industry, and I do not see any reason why this should be imposed on—

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — SITTINGS OF PARLIAMENT.

JOINT COMMITTEE APPOINTED.

Ordered,
That so much of the Lords Message [5th July] as relates to the appointment of a Joint Committee on the Sittings of Parliament he now considered."—[Colonel Gibbs.]

So much of the Lords Message considered accordingly.

Ordered,
That a Select Committee of Eight Members be appointed, to join with a Committee to be appointed by the Lords, to consider the desirability of altering the customary period of the Parliamentary Session and the incidental changes necessary thereto."—[Colonel Gibbs.]

Mr. Acland, Mr. Fisher, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John Gilmour, Mr. Arthur Henderson, Mr. Lunn, Mr. Pretyman, Mr. Lees-Smith, and Lieut.-Colonel Lambert Ward nominated members of the Select Committee.

Ordered, "That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records."

Ordered, "That three be the quorum."—[Colonel Gibbs.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — PROCURATORS-FISCAL AND SHERIFF CLERKS, SCOTLAND.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: I apologise for detaining the House, especially after late sittings, but, unfortunately, we are compelled to take this opportunity of drawing attention to a matter of very great importance to Scotland, namely, the position of the procurators-fiscal and sheriff clerks who, since 1871, have been trying to obtain improvements in their conditions. The controversy has ranged over 50 or 60 years, until the appointment, a year or two ago, of the Blackburn Committee, which recommended a very great improvement in the rates of remuneration, status, pension rights, and general conditions of service of procurators-fiscal and sheriff clerks. Since the Blackburn Committee published its Report—and it was a representative and authoritative document—negotiations have taken place between the two branches of the legal service in Scotland, the Scottish Office and the Treasury. The position at the present time is this: New proposals have been submitted, with
which both branches of the service in Scotland are perfectly dissatisfied, and the Scottish representaitves in the House have been asked to raise this matter on the Floor of the House, in order to ascertain the attitude of the Government.
This problem falls into two parts. There is, first of all, the problem of the procurators-fiscal. They are a peculiar service in Scotland. They have never enjoyed pension rights. They have not had anything like adequate remuneration. They are engaged in very responsible work which includes many duties performed by corresponding but separate officials in England. They have had suggested to them a scheme which differs materially from the Report of the Blackburn Committee, as far as they are concerned. That scheme is wholly unacceptable to the procurators - fiscal. The have made it perfectly clear that until their claim for pensions and superannuation is conceded there is no chance of agreement.
Coming now to the sheriff clerks and their deputes, they have also had proposed to them a scheme in the past few weeks which is, I agree, an improvement on the proposals which have so far been made, but which, from our point of view, cannot be regarded as satisfactory, because it differs materially from and falls far short of the Blackburn Committee's recommendation. It is proposed, first, to bring into operation the new scheme as from the date when the Sheriff Court fees in Scotland were increased—in April, 1922—and, in the second place, to give the sheriff clerks, who have been seriously under-remunerated, an allowance on retirement. They are not all to be entitled to pension or other rights. The allowance on retirement is to equal a week's pay for each year's service, which, of course, would be a miserably inadequate sum even for a man with long service in the Sheriff Courts, and which, if invested, would not enable these poorly remunerated officials in the past to maintain themselves in anything like comfort or decency. That was proposed after long negotiation with the Scottish Office and the Treasury, and our contention is that we must stand firm by the clear terms of the Report of the Blackburn Committee. Our object is to find out what attitude the Government is going to take in this controversy.
There are two things at least which I must say before I make way for other hon. Members who wish to support me on this occasion. The Treasury and the Scottish Office apparently take the view that the bonus which has been paid in respect of the increased cost of living must rank against the proposals we are making for an improvement in the condition of the officials in question. On that point the Blackburn Committee itself was perfectly clear. It indicated that the revenue from the service should not be taken into account in that way. I submit to the House that there is no Department of the State in which the principle is applied that remuneration of the officials is to be based on what we may call the earnings of the Department. We must remember that the bonus was introduced to meet the greatly increased cost of living, and it was given on the basis of a remuneration which, by common consent in Scotland, is shamefully low. I sincerely trust the Solicitor-General will not take refuge in that argument to-night, but even if he does, there is not the slightest doubt that a large increase of the income has taken place since the fees were increased and that there has been no improvement in the position of the officials, apart from the War-time bonus. I trust that the Government will declare for the terms of the Blackburn Committee's Report. They themselves cannot deny that that was a most representative Committee and our case is that anything short of its terms will be a serious injustice to the procurators-fiscal and their assistants and to the sheriff clerks and the deputes.

Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: I desire also to enter my emphatic protest against the treatment given to a small but deserving class of officials, the value of whose work I have had special opportunity of estimating when I was acting as Crown Counsel. I join in what my hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) has said about the scandalous delay which has taken place in giving effect to the recommendations of the various Committees and particularly the Blackburn Committee, as to the necessity of improving the condition of these officials. The Blackburn Committee referred to the existing state of matters "as one that
could only be described as disgraceful," which is a strong epithet to find in the Report of a Departmental Committee, and shows the strength of the case. The negotiations have disclosed that entirely inadequate proposals have been put forward which do not carry out either in the spirit or the letter the recommendations of the Blackburn Committee, and we find it necessary in the House of Commons to make our Parliamentary case as to the injustice being done to these civil servants. The procurators-fiscal, who have very responsible duties as public prosecutors and who also act as coroners, claim they should have increased salaries and allowances for their deputes; also official expenses and adequate pensions, which ought to be framed upon the basis of the actual service which has been given. Under the proposals now made no bonus whatever has been conceded to any existing official over 55 years of age. The gratuity offered is entirely inadequate, it is a mere pittance to men who have spent all their days in the service of the State. I respectfully submit that a case has been made out for a full and adequate pension for all these officials and that the older men should be generously dealt with. It is a strange position that we should have the highest officials of the Courts, the Sheriffs and Sheriffs Substitute, well paid and pensioned, and the lowest officials, the police, well provided for and pensioned, whereas Sheriff Clerks and Procurators Fiscal and their staffs are so poorly remunerated. The Sheriff Clerks perform very responsible duties. In Scotland they carry on the work of half-a-dozen English officials, and therefore they have a very special claim. It is a curious commentary on the whole situation that the Treasury should so far have taken possession of the additional court fees which have been already received owing to the recently sanctioned increase in fees, and that not even temporary allowances have been made to tide these men over the period when their whole claim is being considered.
I submit that in justice to these officials there ought to be the fullest provision made on the lines of the Blackburn Committee, and that any proposals which are submitted to them at the present time which they may be
asked to accept should be fair and adequate instead of being out of keeping with the standards and views which have been expressed by that Committee. If the Solicitor-General for Scotland would consult the Chairman of that Committee and the Sheriffs and Sheriff Substitutes' Associations he would get a little further light on the matter. I am sure we, who are making our case to-night, have behind us, not only the opinion of this particular branch of the Civil Service, but also the opinion of many others outside, who feel that justice ought to be done to these men without further delay.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: I desire to associate myself fully with everything that has fallen from the hon. and learned Member for East Fife (Mr. D. Millar). I have only one further point to bring to the attention of the Solicitor-General for Scotland, and that is the case of the officials in the Highlands and Islands, who are dealt with specially in the Blackburn Report, representing areas which could not be conveniently amalgamated with other areas. In that Report it was suggested that their pay should be £450 a year. So far from that recommendation having been adopted, I understand that no settlement has been arrived at with regard to their pay, but that it has been left to them individually to make an appeal ad misericordiam.That is as great a departure as can possibly be from the principles laid down by the Report of the Blackburn Committee, and I desire to lend what weight I can to what has been said already in our efforts as Members of this House to ventilate this long-standing grievance, and attempt to get some assurance from the Government that they intend, not only to do what is bare justice to these servants of the country, but adhere to the principles laid down in the Report of the Blackburn Committee.

Mr. JAMES BROWN: I think the West of Scotland ought to have a voice in this also. This is a class of the hardest worked officials in the whole of our legal constitution in Scotland. Hitherto they have not been recognised as they ought, and all that we are asking is that some assurance should be given that these men should be adequately paid, that they should have some security of tenure, and that they should be pensioned. I want also to ask why it is that one part of the
Blackburn Report was accepted and not the other. When it was proposed to do something for the officials of the Courts in Scotland, stringency of money was pleaded as against anything being done, and in order to get the money the Sheriff Court fees were raised. A considerable sum of money was raised thereby, and so far as I understand, after deducting what is due to Committees, there is still £25,000 left. All I want to ask the Solicitor-General—and I am sure he is sympathetic—is that these very hard-worked and very highly useful legal fraternity and their officials shall have adequate payment for the work which they do in Scotland. No one but who knows can realise the amount of work that these men do. They are really the backbone of the legal profession, as they prepare everything for the inquiries which the coroners do here in England.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: May I just say, before the hon. and learned Gentleman replies, that I have been making inquiries into this matter, and I am very anxious that we should get a satisfactory answer?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. F. C. Thomson): I join with my Scottish colleagues in their regard for the work performed in Scotland by the Procurators-Fiscal and the Sheriff Clerks. No one connected with the law in Scotland can possibly hold any other view as to their most valuable and important work. In a sense, however, it is unfortunate that this matter should be raised just at the moment when the representatives of the two bodies are about to submit to their respective associations the proposals which have been put before them by the Treasury and by the Scottish Office. In regard to the salaries, there is a very great modification on the original proposals, and the proposals now arrived at after long consultation and discussion, do not, I think, as regards salary, differ very materially from what the officials themselves would regard as fair and reasonable. As to the clerks' salary, there is really no very great difference, speaking broadly, between the last offer made by the Government, and what these officials would consider fair and reasonable.
On the point of bonus, no one for a moment wishes to stress that question
against these officials. Far from it! But it was represented that owing to the increased fees of a year ago the Government, which offered simply an additional sum of money, had, so to speak, made a clear profit. It is fair to point out that this is a question for the taxpayer, and that, so far from having made a profit upon the service by increasing the fees, the sum paid out in bonus since the bonuses were instituted considerably exceeded the additional sum which was gained by the increase of fees last year. No one desires to raise the question of the bonus except to correct the impression that the Government had really made a profit by raising the fees. The question could not be fairly dealt with unless it was allowed that the taxpayer had—very properly—provided a sum since the bonus was instituted very much larger than had gone into the Government coffers through the increase of fees. Of course, legislation would be necessary before these proposals can be brought into effect. The Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. James Brown) spoke of security of tenure. The staffs will get that through being established and will become civil servants. I do not, therefore, think that really there is a very serious difference with regard to salaries and tenure between the officials and the representatives of the Government, looking at the matter as a whole.
A further point has been raised, namely, that all officers should be established, and in calculating pensions, that back service should be taken into account. By Statute, the Treasury is not entitled to pay pensions for a service of less than 10 years. The Regulations provide that civil servants may have to retire at 60, and the ordinary rule is that no man shall be established over the age of 50. Under these proposals it is suggested that officials up to the age of 55 should be established, which is going five years beyond the ordinary Civil Service rule. As regards pension for back service, in analogous cases, pension for back service has not been given on establishment. Take the County Court staffs in England. Just the other day a scheme similar to the present scheme was accepted by the County Court staffs, and it would be difficult to justify different treatment to that for the Court officials in Scotland. However meritorious their
work, and I have every sympathy and appreciation of it, it would be difficult to justify different treatment as regards pension for back service in their case, compared with officials doing analogous legal work in England who have, up to date, not been established, and are now being established on conditions similar to those proposed here, which do not include pension for back service. There are numerous cases in London, in the legal departments of Government offices, where staffs were remunerated up to the other day by a lump-sum payment made to one of the heads of the Department, and from the lump sum he had to pay the officials under his charge. It was, however, thought better that such officials should be established, and in numerous cases they have been established; but it has not been found possible to depart from the well-established Treasury Rule that back service should not count for pension.
If we were to depart from this rule in one case, it would mean departure in many other cases, and it would mean for the taxpayer a very large sum of money to grant back service. It is a costly proceeding. It would be equivalent, in the case of a man aged 50 years, drawing £300 plus bonus and with 20 years' back service, to an increase of from £150 to £200 a year in his pay. That means a very large sum, and it is impossible for us to treat similar services in a different way in the two countries. Of course, if my own personal and private desires could be considered in this matter, I should like to see special treatment accorded to these officers; but one must look the facts fairly and squarely in the face, and if we have similar bodies in England being established at the present time, and a scheme proposed for them which does not give them a pension taking back service into account in fixing their pension, it is difficult to see how it could be justified in another case. I have given these various instances of legal officers and legal Departments in London, and I have shown that in none of these cases—

It being half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half after Eleven o'Clock.